Links to Exploration step
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Assessing fit at the implant-abutment junction with a radiographic device that does not require access to the implant body</title><author><name sortKey="Lin, Kevin C" sort="Lin, Kevin C" uniqKey="Lin K" first="Kevin C." last="Lin">Kevin C. Lin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wadhwani, Chandur P K" sort="Wadhwani, Chandur P K" uniqKey="Wadhwani C" first="Chandur P. K." last="Wadhwani">Chandur P. K. Wadhwani</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cheng, Jing" sort="Cheng, Jing" uniqKey="Cheng J" first="Jing" last="Cheng">Jing Cheng</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sharma, Arun" sort="Sharma, Arun" uniqKey="Sharma A" first="Arun" last="Sharma">Arun Sharma</name></author><author><name sortKey="Finzen, Frederick" sort="Finzen, Frederick" uniqKey="Finzen F" first="Frederick" last="Finzen">Frederick Finzen</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno><idno type="pmid">24836280</idno><idno type="pmc">5567837</idno><idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5567837</idno><idno type="RBID">PMC:5567837</idno><idno type="doi">10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.016</idno><date when="2014">2014</date><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">002602</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PMC">002602</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">Assessing fit at the implant-abutment junction with a radiographic device that does not require access to the implant body</title><author><name sortKey="Lin, Kevin C" sort="Lin, Kevin C" uniqKey="Lin K" first="Kevin C." last="Lin">Kevin C. Lin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wadhwani, Chandur P K" sort="Wadhwani, Chandur P K" uniqKey="Wadhwani C" first="Chandur P. K." last="Wadhwani">Chandur P. K. Wadhwani</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cheng, Jing" sort="Cheng, Jing" uniqKey="Cheng J" first="Jing" last="Cheng">Jing Cheng</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sharma, Arun" sort="Sharma, Arun" uniqKey="Sharma A" first="Arun" last="Sharma">Arun Sharma</name></author><author><name sortKey="Finzen, Frederick" sort="Finzen, Frederick" uniqKey="Finzen F" first="Frederick" last="Finzen">Frederick Finzen</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-3913</idno><idno type="eISSN">1097-6841</idno><imprint><date when="2014">2014</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><sec id="S1"><title>Statement of problem</title><p id="P1">Radiograph paralleling devices provide an excellent means of obtaining orthogonal radiographs for the evaluation of the fit of implant restorations. Unfortunately, the clinical applicability of such devices is a significant issue because access to the implant body must be obtained at each radiographic appointment.</p></sec><sec id="S2"><title>Purpose</title><p id="P2">The purpose of the study was to investigate whether the fit or microgap at the implant-abutment junction could be more accurately and confidently assessed with a novel radiograph paralleling device that did not require access to the implant body once a proper registration index was made.</p></sec><sec id="S3"><title>Material and methods</title><p id="P3">Microgaps of 0, 50, and 100 μm were introduced at the implant-abutment junction of a provisional implant crown in a manikin-typodont assembly. Dental assistants made 54 radiographs (18 per microgap) of the crown with and without a radiograph paralleling device; 9 clinicians then evaluated the standardized radiographs for the presence of misfit. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and the corresponding odds ratios were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the paralleling device in helping clinicians better assess misfit from the radiographs made.</p></sec><sec id="S4"><title>Results</title><p id="P4">The use of the device led to a higher percentage of accuracy under all conditions (79.0% vs 70.4% at the 0-μm gap, 77.8% vs 16.1% at the 50-μm gap, and 100% vs 92.6% at the 100-μm gap); the improvement was statistically significant at the 50-μm gap (<italic>P</italic><.001) and 100-μm gap (<italic>P</italic>=.049) but not at the 0-μm gap (<italic>P</italic>=.364). The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of obtaining correct versus wrong answers with the device compared with without the device was 18.64 (7.94–43.77) at the 50-μm gap and 5.40 (0.25–114.25) at the 100-μm gap.</p></sec><sec id="S5"><title>Conclusions</title><p id="P5">The study indicated that the paralleling device helped the clinician more accurately assess the implant-abutment junction with the 50- and 100-μm gaps.</p></sec></div></front></TEI><pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-comment>The publisher of this article does not allow downloading of the full text in XML form.</pmc-comment>
<pmc-dir>properties manuscript</pmc-dir>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-journal-id">0376364</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="pubmed-jr-id">5208</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">J Prosthet Dent</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">J Prosthet Dent</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0022-3913</issn><issn pub-type="epub">1097-6841</issn></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">24836280</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmc">5567837</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.016</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="manuscript">NIHMS895215</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Assessing fit at the implant-abutment junction with a radiographic device that does not require access to the implant body</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Lin</surname><given-names>Kevin C.</given-names></name><degrees>DDS</degrees><xref rid="FN2" ref-type="author-notes">a</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Wadhwani</surname><given-names>Chandur P. K.</given-names></name><degrees>BDS, MSD</degrees><xref rid="FN3" ref-type="author-notes">b</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Cheng</surname><given-names>Jing</given-names></name><degrees>MD, MS, PhD</degrees><xref rid="FN4" ref-type="author-notes">c</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Sharma</surname><given-names>Arun</given-names></name><degrees>BDS, MSc</degrees><xref rid="FN5" ref-type="author-notes">d</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Finzen</surname><given-names>Frederick</given-names></name><degrees>DDS</degrees><xref rid="FN6" ref-type="author-notes">e</xref></contrib><aff id="A1">School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash; School of Dentistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif</aff></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp id="FN1">Corresponding author: Dr Kevin C. Lin, 1201 12th Ave, # 11, San Francisco, CA 94122, <email>kevin.kclin@gmail.com</email></corresp><fn id="FN2"><label>a</label><p>Private practice, San Francisco, Calif.</p></fn><fn id="FN3"><label>b</label><p>Affiliate Faculty, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington; Private practice, Bellevue, Wash.</p></fn><fn id="FN4"><label>c</label><p>Associate Professor, School of Dentistry, University of California.</p></fn><fn id="FN5"><label>d</label><p>Health Sciences Clinical Professor, School of Dentistry, University of California.</p></fn><fn id="FN6"><label>e</label><p>Health Sciences Clinical Professor and Division Chair, Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of California.</p></fn></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="nihms-submitted"><day>28</day><month>7</month><year>2017</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>14</day><month>5</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>10</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="pmc-release"><day>23</day><month>8</month><year>2017</year></pub-date><volume>112</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>817</fpage><lpage>823</lpage><pmc-comment>elocation-id from pubmed: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.016</pmc-comment>
<abstract><sec id="S1"><title>Statement of problem</title><p id="P1">Radiograph paralleling devices provide an excellent means of obtaining orthogonal radiographs for the evaluation of the fit of implant restorations. Unfortunately, the clinical applicability of such devices is a significant issue because access to the implant body must be obtained at each radiographic appointment.</p></sec><sec id="S2"><title>Purpose</title><p id="P2">The purpose of the study was to investigate whether the fit or microgap at the implant-abutment junction could be more accurately and confidently assessed with a novel radiograph paralleling device that did not require access to the implant body once a proper registration index was made.</p></sec><sec id="S3"><title>Material and methods</title><p id="P3">Microgaps of 0, 50, and 100 μm were introduced at the implant-abutment junction of a provisional implant crown in a manikin-typodont assembly. Dental assistants made 54 radiographs (18 per microgap) of the crown with and without a radiograph paralleling device; 9 clinicians then evaluated the standardized radiographs for the presence of misfit. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and the corresponding odds ratios were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the paralleling device in helping clinicians better assess misfit from the radiographs made.</p></sec><sec id="S4"><title>Results</title><p id="P4">The use of the device led to a higher percentage of accuracy under all conditions (79.0% vs 70.4% at the 0-μm gap, 77.8% vs 16.1% at the 50-μm gap, and 100% vs 92.6% at the 100-μm gap); the improvement was statistically significant at the 50-μm gap (<italic>P</italic><.001) and 100-μm gap (<italic>P</italic>=.049) but not at the 0-μm gap (<italic>P</italic>=.364). The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of obtaining correct versus wrong answers with the device compared with without the device was 18.64 (7.94–43.77) at the 50-μm gap and 5.40 (0.25–114.25) at the 100-μm gap.</p></sec><sec id="S5"><title>Conclusions</title><p id="P5">The study indicated that the paralleling device helped the clinician more accurately assess the implant-abutment junction with the 50- and 100-μm gaps.</p></sec></abstract></article-meta></front></pmc></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Pmc/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002602 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002602 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Pmc
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé=
|texte=
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |