The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation
Identifieur interne : 004D83 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 004D82; suivant : 004D84The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation
Auteurs : Kenneth B. May ; Marion J. Edge ; Brien R. Lang ; Rui-Feng WangSource :
- Journal of Prosthodontics [ 1059-941X ] ; 1996-09.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Cylinder interface, Dent, Framework, Framework assemblies, Framework condition, Framework conditions, Framework fabrication, Gold cylinders, Guide pins, Implant, Implant components, Implant location, Implant locations, Interface, Midfacial surface, Misfit, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated, Partial dentures, Patient simulation model, Periotest, Periotest instrument, Periotest method, Prosthesis, Prosthet, Prosthet dent, Ptvs, Quantitative misfit, Significant differences, Simulation, Ssac, Ssac assemblies, Ssac framework, Ssac frameworks, Ssac ssic, Ssic, Ssic frameworks, Sslc assemblies.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Cylinder interface, Dent, Framework, Framework assemblies, Framework condition, Framework conditions, Framework fabrication, Gold cylinders, Guide pins, Implant, Implant components, Implant location, Implant locations, Interface, Midfacial surface, Misfit, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated, Partial dentures, Patient simulation model, Periotest, Periotest instrument, Periotest method, Prosthesis, Prosthet, Prosthet dent, Ptvs, Quantitative misfit, Significant differences, Simulation, Ssac, Ssac assemblies, Ssac framework, Ssac frameworks, Ssac ssic, Ssic, Ssic frameworks, Sslc assemblies.
Abstract
In this study, the Periotest instrument was used to measure the precision of fit between cast high noble‐metal frameworks and the supporting implants in a patient‐simulation model. Three framework conditions and three implant‐location variables were used to evaluate the rigidity of the assembly as measured by the Periotest method. The framework variables were (1) one‐piece castings (OPC); (2) sectioned‐soldered inaccurate castings (SSIC); and (3) sectioned‐soldered accurate castings (SSAC). The implant‐location variables were right anterior (RA), center (C), and left anterior (LA).
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00298.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation</title><author><name sortKey="May, Kenneth B" sort="May, Kenneth B" uniqKey="May K" first="Kenneth B." last="May">Kenneth B. May</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Correspondence address: Kenneth B. May, DDS, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐1078.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Edge, Marion J" sort="Edge, Marion J" uniqKey="Edge M" first="Marion J." last="Edge">Marion J. Edge</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinical Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lang, Brien R" sort="Lang, Brien R" uniqKey="Lang B" first="Brien R." last="Lang">Brien R. Lang</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Professor and Chair, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Wang, Rui Eng" sort="Wang, Rui Eng" uniqKey="Wang R" first="Rui-Feng" last="Wang">Rui-Feng Wang</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Associate I, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14</idno><date when="1996" year="1996">1996</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00298.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">004D83</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">004D83</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation</title><author><name sortKey="May, Kenneth B" sort="May, Kenneth B" uniqKey="May K" first="Kenneth B." last="May">Kenneth B. May</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Correspondence address: Kenneth B. May, DDS, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐1078.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Edge, Marion J" sort="Edge, Marion J" uniqKey="Edge M" first="Marion J." last="Edge">Marion J. Edge</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinical Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lang, Brien R" sort="Lang, Brien R" uniqKey="Lang B" first="Brien R." last="Lang">Brien R. Lang</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Professor and Chair, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Wang, Rui Eng" sort="Wang, Rui Eng" uniqKey="Wang R" first="Rui-Feng" last="Wang">Rui-Feng Wang</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Associate I, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS</title><idno type="ISSN">1059-941X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1532-849X</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="206">206</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="213">213</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-09">1996-09</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1059-941X</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1059-941X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Cylinder interface</term><term>Dent</term><term>Framework</term><term>Framework assemblies</term><term>Framework condition</term><term>Framework conditions</term><term>Framework fabrication</term><term>Gold cylinders</term><term>Guide pins</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant components</term><term>Implant location</term><term>Implant locations</term><term>Interface</term><term>Midfacial surface</term><term>Misfit</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Patient simulation model</term><term>Periotest</term><term>Periotest instrument</term><term>Periotest method</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Ptvs</term><term>Quantitative misfit</term><term>Significant differences</term><term>Simulation</term><term>Ssac</term><term>Ssac assemblies</term><term>Ssac framework</term><term>Ssac frameworks</term><term>Ssac ssic</term><term>Ssic</term><term>Ssic frameworks</term><term>Sslc assemblies</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Cylinder interface</term><term>Dent</term><term>Framework</term><term>Framework assemblies</term><term>Framework condition</term><term>Framework conditions</term><term>Framework fabrication</term><term>Gold cylinders</term><term>Guide pins</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant components</term><term>Implant location</term><term>Implant locations</term><term>Interface</term><term>Midfacial surface</term><term>Misfit</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Patient simulation model</term><term>Periotest</term><term>Periotest instrument</term><term>Periotest method</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Ptvs</term><term>Quantitative misfit</term><term>Significant differences</term><term>Simulation</term><term>Ssac</term><term>Ssac assemblies</term><term>Ssac framework</term><term>Ssac frameworks</term><term>Ssac ssic</term><term>Ssic</term><term>Ssic frameworks</term><term>Sslc assemblies</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">In this study, the Periotest instrument was used to measure the precision of fit between cast high noble‐metal frameworks and the supporting implants in a patient‐simulation model. Three framework conditions and three implant‐location variables were used to evaluate the rigidity of the assembly as measured by the Periotest method. The framework variables were (1) one‐piece castings (OPC); (2) sectioned‐soldered inaccurate castings (SSIC); and (3) sectioned‐soldered accurate castings (SSAC). The implant‐location variables were right anterior (RA), center (C), and left anterior (LA).</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>periotest</json:string><json:string>ssac</json:string><json:string>ssic</json:string><json:string>ptvs</json:string><json:string>framework conditions</json:string><json:string>implant locations</json:string><json:string>periotest method</json:string><json:string>periotest instrument</json:string><json:string>significant differences</json:string><json:string>implant location</json:string><json:string>patient simulation model</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>misfit</json:string><json:string>prosthet</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>framework condition</json:string><json:string>ssic frameworks</json:string><json:string>ssac frameworks</json:string><json:string>prosthet dent</json:string><json:string>framework</json:string><json:string>ssac assemblies</json:string><json:string>cylinder interface</json:string><json:string>simulation</json:string><json:string>ssac framework</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>sslc assemblies</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>implant components</json:string><json:string>gold cylinders</json:string><json:string>ssac ssic</json:string><json:string>framework fabrication</json:string><json:string>framework assemblies</json:string><json:string>midfacial surface</json:string><json:string>quantitative misfit</json:string><json:string>guide pins</json:string><json:string>partial dentures</json:string><json:string>interface</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Kenneth B. May DDS</name><affiliations><json:string>Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</json:string><json:string>Correspondence address: Kenneth B. May, DDS, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐1078.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Marion J. Edge DMD, MEd</name><affiliations><json:string>Clinical Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Brien R. Lang DDS</name><affiliations><json:string>Professor and Chair, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Rui‐Feng Wang BS</name><affiliations><json:string>Research Associate I, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>precision</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>fit</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>framework</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>substructure</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>interface</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JOPR206</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-MSVH4Q1M-D</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>In this study, the Periotest instrument was used to measure the precision of fit between cast high noble‐metal frameworks and the supporting implants in a patient‐simulation model. Three framework conditions and three implant‐location variables were used to evaluate the rigidity of the assembly as measured by the Periotest method. The framework variables were (1) one‐piece castings (OPC); (2) sectioned‐soldered inaccurate castings (SSIC); and (3) sectioned‐soldered accurate castings (SSAC). The implant‐location variables were right anterior (RA), center (C), and left anterior (LA).</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.293</score><pdfWordCount>4321</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>27394</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>594 x 792 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>81</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>588</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>6</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation</title><pmid><json:string>9028226</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Prosthodontics</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1532-849X</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1059-941X</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1532-849X</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JOPR</json:string></publisherId><volume>5</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>206</first><last>213</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1992</json:string><json:string>1996</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Dentsply Int, Inc, York</json:string><json:string>Bosworth Co</json:string><json:string>Reliance Dental Mfg Co</json:string><json:string>Mix Corp</json:string><json:string>American College</json:string><json:string>Ney Co</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, School</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Propum</json:string><json:string>LA Mean</json:string><json:string>Pr</json:string><json:string>Mere</json:string><json:string>Ann Arbor</json:string><json:string>Jade Stone</json:string><json:string>Kenneth B. Mq</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>IL</json:string><json:string>Skokie</json:string><json:string>Bloomfield</json:string><json:string>CT</json:string><json:string>Worth</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>May et al</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-MSVH4Q1M-D</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>1996</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1996</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00298.x</json:string></doi><id>9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-09"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Kenneth B.</forename><surname>May</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Kenneth B. May, DDS, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐1078.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Marion J.</forename><surname>Edge</surname><roleName type="degree">DMD, MEd</roleName></persName><affiliation>Clinical Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Brien R.</forename><surname>Lang</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Professor and Chair, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Rui‐Feng</forename><surname>Wang</surname><roleName type="degree">BS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Research Associate I, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-MSVH4Q1M-D</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00298.x</idno><idno type="unit">JOPR206</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOPR.JOPR206.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS</title><idno type="pISSN">1059-941X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1532-849X</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1532-849X</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/jopr.1996.5.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">JOPR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="206">206</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="213">213</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-09"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main">
Purpose
<p>In this study, the Periotest instrument was used to measure the precision of fit between cast high noble‐metal frameworks and the supporting implants in a patient‐simulation model. Three framework conditions and three implant‐location variables were used to evaluate the rigidity of the assembly as measured by the Periotest method. The framework variables were (1) one‐piece castings (OPC); (2) sectioned‐soldered inaccurate castings (SSIC); and (3) sectioned‐soldered accurate castings (SSAC). The implant‐location variables were right anterior (RA), center (C), and left anterior (LA).</p>
Materials and Methods
<p>The patient simulation model used consisted of three self‐tapping Brånemark implants in a reasonable arch curvature in bovine bone. Three working casts were fabricated from the patient‐simulation model using polyvinyl siloxane and tapered impression copings. From the working casts, three sets of three frameworks were fabricated as OPCs, SSICs, and SSACs using type 3 high noble alloy. The SSICs were fabricated with a quantitative misfit of 101.6 μm at the facial surface, between the abutment‐to‐gold cylinder interface at the C implant location. Periotest value (PTV) measurements were made at the midfacial surface of the frameworks directly above each abutment‐to‐gold cylinder interface. Three measurements were made for each test condition. The data were analyzed to compare framework condition(s) and implant location(s) using ANOVA and Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference Comparison Test.</p>
Results
<p>The ANOVA showed that significant differences exist between the mean PTV data for framework condition and for implant location (p < .01). Significant differences were shown between the mean PTV data for the SSAC assemblies and the OPC and SSIC assemblies. The SSICs displayed a more positive (+) mean PTV than the OPCs. The OPC assemblies had a more positive mean PTV than the SSAC assemblies. The mean PTV data for the SSAC assemblies had a significantly different PTV (p < .01) than the other two framework condition assemblies. The OPC and the SSIC assemblies had PTVs that were not significantly different. The C implant location was significantly different from the RA and the LA implant locations (p < .01). The RA and the LA implant locations were not significantly different from each other. The C implant location always demonstrated the most positive mean PTV regardless of the framework condition being tested.</p>
Conclusions
<p>The Periotest instrument quantified differences in the precision of fit between three framework conditions. The SSAC assemblies were significantly more rigid than the OPC and SSIC assemblies. The OPC and SSIC assemblies' mean PTVs were not significantly different. The mean PTVs for the C implant location and the RA and LA implant locations were significantly different (p < .01). The mean PTVs of the RA and LA implant locations were not significantly different. The implant‐location PTVs followed the same rank order for all three framework conditions. The procedures used to fabricate a more precise fit between the framework and the supporting implants is influenced by the skill of the clinician and technician.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">precision</term><term xml:id="k2">implant</term><term xml:id="k3">fit</term><term xml:id="k4">framework</term><term xml:id="k5">substructure</term><term xml:id="k6">interface</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1532-849X</doi><issn type="print">1059-941X</issn><issn type="electronic">1532-849X</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JOPR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS">Journal of Prosthodontics</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="09003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jopr.1996.5.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="5">5</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1996-09">September 1996</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0020600" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00298.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOPR206"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2005-03-08"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2005-03-08"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-31"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="206">206</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="213">213</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Kenneth B. May, DDS, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐1078.</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOPR.JOPR206.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted March 6, 1996</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="37"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="5"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Kenneth B.</givenNames><familyName>May</familyName><degrees>DDS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Marion J.</givenNames><familyName>Edge</familyName><degrees>DMD, MEd</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Brien R.</givenNames><familyName>Lang</familyName><degrees>DDS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>Rui‐Feng</givenNames><familyName>Wang</familyName><degrees>BS</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>Clinical Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>Professor and Chair, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>Research Associate I, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">precision</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">implant</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">fit</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">framework</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">substructure</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">interface</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><section xml:id="abs1-1"><title type="main">Purpose</title><p>In this study, the Periotest instrument was used to measure the precision of fit between cast high noble‐metal frameworks and the supporting implants in a patient‐simulation model. Three framework conditions and three implant‐location variables were used to evaluate the rigidity of the assembly as measured by the Periotest method. The framework variables were (1) one‐piece castings (OPC); (2) sectioned‐soldered inaccurate castings (SSIC); and (3) sectioned‐soldered accurate castings (SSAC). The implant‐location variables were right anterior (RA), center (C), and left anterior (LA).</p></section><section xml:id="abs1-2"><title type="main">Materials and Methods</title><p>The patient simulation model used consisted of three self‐tapping Brånemark implants in a reasonable arch curvature in bovine bone. Three working casts were fabricated from the patient‐simulation model using polyvinyl siloxane and tapered impression copings. From the working casts, three sets of three frameworks were fabricated as OPCs, SSICs, and SSACs using type 3 high noble alloy. The SSICs were fabricated with a quantitative misfit of 101.6 μm at the facial surface, between the abutment‐to‐gold cylinder interface at the C implant location. Periotest value (PTV) measurements were made at the midfacial surface of the frameworks directly above each abutment‐to‐gold cylinder interface. Three measurements were made for each test condition. The data were analyzed to compare framework condition(s) and implant location(s) using ANOVA and Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference Comparison Test.</p></section><section xml:id="abs1-3"><title type="main">Results</title><p>The ANOVA showed that significant differences exist between the mean PTV data for framework condition and for implant location (p < .01). Significant differences were shown between the mean PTV data for the SSAC assemblies and the OPC and SSIC assemblies. The SSICs displayed a more positive (+) mean PTV than the OPCs. The OPC assemblies had a more positive mean PTV than the SSAC assemblies. The mean PTV data for the SSAC assemblies had a significantly different PTV (p < .01) than the other two framework condition assemblies. The OPC and the SSIC assemblies had PTVs that were not significantly different. The C implant location was significantly different from the RA and the LA implant locations (p < .01). The RA and the LA implant locations were not significantly different from each other. The C implant location always demonstrated the most positive mean PTV regardless of the framework condition being tested.</p></section><section xml:id="abs1-4"><title type="main">Conclusions</title><p>The Periotest instrument quantified differences in the precision of fit between three framework conditions. The SSAC assemblies were significantly more rigid than the OPC and SSIC assemblies. The OPC and SSIC assemblies' mean PTVs were not significantly different. The mean PTVs for the C implant location and the RA and LA implant locations were significantly different (p < .01). The mean PTVs of the RA and LA implant locations were not significantly different. The implant‐location PTVs followed the same rank order for all three framework conditions. The procedures used to fabricate a more precise fit between the framework and the supporting implants is influenced by the skill of the clinician and technician.</p></section></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta><noteGroup><note xml:id="n-fnt-1" numbered="no"><p>Supported in part by BioResearch, Milwaukee, WI, and the Department ofProsthodontics, University of Michigan School of Dentistry.</p></note><note xml:id="n-fnt-2" numbered="no"><p>This article was derived from an oral presentation at the 24th Annual Scientific Program of The American College of Prosthodontists, October 1993, Palm Springs, CA.</p></note></noteGroup></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Kenneth B.</namePart><namePart type="family">May</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS</namePart><affiliation>Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</affiliation><affiliation>Correspondence address: Kenneth B. May, DDS, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐1078.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Marion J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Edge</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DMD, MEd</namePart><affiliation>Clinical Assistant Professor, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Brien R.</namePart><namePart type="family">Lang</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS</namePart><affiliation>Professor and Chair, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Rui‐Feng</namePart><namePart type="family">Wang</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">BS</namePart><affiliation>Research Associate I, From the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1996-09</dateIssued><edition>Accepted March 6, 1996</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1996</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="references">37</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">5</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>In this study, the Periotest instrument was used to measure the precision of fit between cast high noble‐metal frameworks and the supporting implants in a patient‐simulation model. Three framework conditions and three implant‐location variables were used to evaluate the rigidity of the assembly as measured by the Periotest method. The framework variables were (1) one‐piece castings (OPC); (2) sectioned‐soldered inaccurate castings (SSIC); and (3) sectioned‐soldered accurate castings (SSAC). The implant‐location variables were right anterior (RA), center (C), and left anterior (LA).</abstract><abstract>The patient simulation model used consisted of three self‐tapping Brånemark implants in a reasonable arch curvature in bovine bone. Three working casts were fabricated from the patient‐simulation model using polyvinyl siloxane and tapered impression copings. From the working casts, three sets of three frameworks were fabricated as OPCs, SSICs, and SSACs using type 3 high noble alloy. The SSICs were fabricated with a quantitative misfit of 101.6 μm at the facial surface, between the abutment‐to‐gold cylinder interface at the C implant location. Periotest value (PTV) measurements were made at the midfacial surface of the frameworks directly above each abutment‐to‐gold cylinder interface. Three measurements were made for each test condition. The data were analyzed to compare framework condition(s) and implant location(s) using ANOVA and Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference Comparison Test.</abstract><abstract>The ANOVA showed that significant differences exist between the mean PTV data for framework condition and for implant location (p < .01). Significant differences were shown between the mean PTV data for the SSAC assemblies and the OPC and SSIC assemblies. The SSICs displayed a more positive (+) mean PTV than the OPCs. The OPC assemblies had a more positive mean PTV than the SSAC assemblies. The mean PTV data for the SSAC assemblies had a significantly different PTV (p < .01) than the other two framework condition assemblies. The OPC and the SSIC assemblies had PTVs that were not significantly different. The C implant location was significantly different from the RA and the LA implant locations (p < .01). The RA and the LA implant locations were not significantly different from each other. The C implant location always demonstrated the most positive mean PTV regardless of the framework condition being tested.</abstract><abstract>The Periotest instrument quantified differences in the precision of fit between three framework conditions. The SSAC assemblies were significantly more rigid than the OPC and SSIC assemblies. The OPC and SSIC assemblies' mean PTVs were not significantly different. The mean PTVs for the C implant location and the RA and LA implant locations were significantly different (p < .01). The mean PTVs of the RA and LA implant locations were not significantly different. The implant‐location PTVs followed the same rank order for all three framework conditions. The procedures used to fabricate a more precise fit between the framework and the supporting implants is influenced by the skill of the clinician and technician.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>precision</topic><topic>implant</topic><topic>fit</topic><topic>framework</topic><topic>substructure</topic><topic>interface</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Prosthodontics</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1059-941X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1532-849X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1532-849X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JOPR</identifier><part><date>1996</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>5</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>206</start><end>213</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-MSVH4Q1M-D</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00298.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JOPR206</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 004D83 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 004D83 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:9B77ABFE66B0197B5D5460AA1C85B18A7D2EDB14
|texte= The Periotest Method: Implant‐Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |