Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.
Identifieur interne : 000F93 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 000F92; suivant : 000F94Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.
Auteurs : Michael Stimmelmayr ; Kurt Erdelt ; Jan-Frederik Güth ; Arndt Happe ; Florian BeuerSource :
- Clinical oral investigations [ 1436-3771 ] ; 2012.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Cuspid, Dental Arch (pathology), Dental Implant-Abutment Design, Dental Implants, Dental Impression Materials (chemistry), Dental Impression Technique (instrumentation), Dental Impression Technique (standards), Dental Impression Technique (statistics & numerical data), Dental Models, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted (methods), Image Processing, Computer-Assisted (statistics & numerical data), Imaging, Three-Dimensional (methods), Jaw, Edentulous (pathology), Mandible (pathology), Molar, Resins, Synthetic (chemistry).
- MESH :
- chemical , chemistry : Dental Impression Materials, Resins, Synthetic.
- chemical : Dental Implants.
- instrumentation : Dental Impression Technique.
- methods : Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Imaging, Three-Dimensional.
- pathology : Dental Arch, Jaw, Edentulous, Mandible.
- standards : Dental Impression Technique.
- statistics & numerical data : Dental Impression Technique, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted.
- Cuspid, Dental Implant-Abutment Design, Dental Models, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Humans, Molar.
Abstract
Implant-supported prosthodontics requires precise impressions to achieve a passive fit. Since the early 1990s, in vitro studies comparing different implant impression techniques were performed, capturing the data mostly mechanically. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different impression techniques digitally. Dental implants were inserted bilaterally in ten polymer lower-arch models at the positions of the first molars and canines. From each original model, three different impressions (A, transfer; B, pick-up; and C, splinted pick-up) were taken. Scan-bodies were mounted on the implants of the polymer and on the lab analogues of the stone models and digitized. The scan-body in position 36 (FDI) of the digitized original and master casts were each superimposed, and the deviations of the remaining three scan-bodies were measured three-dimensionally. The systematic error of digitizing the models was 13 μm for the polymer and 5 μm for the stone model. The mean discrepancies of the original model to the stone casts were 124 μm (±34) μm for the transfer technique, 116 (±46) μm for the pick-up technique, and 80 (±25) μm for the splinted pick-up technique. There were statistically significant discrepancies between the evaluated impression techniques (p ≤ 0.025; ANOVA test). The splinted pick-up impression showed the least deviation between original and stone model; transfer and pick-up techniques showed similar results. For better accuracy of implant-supported prosthodontics, the splinted pick-up technique should be used for impressions of four implants evenly spread in edentulous jaws.
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0622-z
PubMed: 22009182
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:22009182Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.</title><author><name sortKey="Stimmelmayr, Michael" sort="Stimmelmayr, Michael" uniqKey="Stimmelmayr M" first="Michael" last="Stimmelmayr">Michael Stimmelmayr</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>michael.stimmelmayr@med.uni-muenchen.de</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Erdelt, Kurt" sort="Erdelt, Kurt" uniqKey="Erdelt K" first="Kurt" last="Erdelt">Kurt Erdelt</name></author><author><name sortKey="Guth, Jan Frederik" sort="Guth, Jan Frederik" uniqKey="Guth J" first="Jan-Frederik" last="Güth">Jan-Frederik Güth</name></author><author><name sortKey="Happe, Arndt" sort="Happe, Arndt" uniqKey="Happe A" first="Arndt" last="Happe">Arndt Happe</name></author><author><name sortKey="Beuer, Florian" sort="Beuer, Florian" uniqKey="Beuer F" first="Florian" last="Beuer">Florian Beuer</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2012">2012</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:22009182</idno><idno type="pmid">22009182</idno><idno type="doi">10.1007/s00784-011-0622-z</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000F93</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000F93</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.</title><author><name sortKey="Stimmelmayr, Michael" sort="Stimmelmayr, Michael" uniqKey="Stimmelmayr M" first="Michael" last="Stimmelmayr">Michael Stimmelmayr</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>michael.stimmelmayr@med.uni-muenchen.de</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Erdelt, Kurt" sort="Erdelt, Kurt" uniqKey="Erdelt K" first="Kurt" last="Erdelt">Kurt Erdelt</name></author><author><name sortKey="Guth, Jan Frederik" sort="Guth, Jan Frederik" uniqKey="Guth J" first="Jan-Frederik" last="Güth">Jan-Frederik Güth</name></author><author><name sortKey="Happe, Arndt" sort="Happe, Arndt" uniqKey="Happe A" first="Arndt" last="Happe">Arndt Happe</name></author><author><name sortKey="Beuer, Florian" sort="Beuer, Florian" uniqKey="Beuer F" first="Florian" last="Beuer">Florian Beuer</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Clinical oral investigations</title><idno type="eISSN">1436-3771</idno><imprint><date when="2012" type="published">2012</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Cuspid</term><term>Dental Arch (pathology)</term><term>Dental Implant-Abutment Design</term><term>Dental Implants</term><term>Dental Impression Materials (chemistry)</term><term>Dental Impression Technique (instrumentation)</term><term>Dental Impression Technique (standards)</term><term>Dental Impression Technique (statistics & numerical data)</term><term>Dental Models</term><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Humans</term><term>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted (methods)</term><term>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted (statistics & numerical data)</term><term>Imaging, Three-Dimensional (methods)</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous (pathology)</term><term>Mandible (pathology)</term><term>Molar</term><term>Resins, Synthetic (chemistry)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" qualifier="chemistry" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Impression Materials</term><term>Resins, Synthetic</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Implants</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="instrumentation" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Impression Technique</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</term><term>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="pathology" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Arch</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous</term><term>Mandible</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="standards" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Impression Technique</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="statistics & numerical data" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Impression Technique</term><term>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Cuspid</term><term>Dental Implant-Abutment Design</term><term>Dental Models</term><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Humans</term><term>Molar</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Implant-supported prosthodontics requires precise impressions to achieve a passive fit. Since the early 1990s, in vitro studies comparing different implant impression techniques were performed, capturing the data mostly mechanically. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different impression techniques digitally. Dental implants were inserted bilaterally in ten polymer lower-arch models at the positions of the first molars and canines. From each original model, three different impressions (A, transfer; B, pick-up; and C, splinted pick-up) were taken. Scan-bodies were mounted on the implants of the polymer and on the lab analogues of the stone models and digitized. The scan-body in position 36 (FDI) of the digitized original and master casts were each superimposed, and the deviations of the remaining three scan-bodies were measured three-dimensionally. The systematic error of digitizing the models was 13 μm for the polymer and 5 μm for the stone model. The mean discrepancies of the original model to the stone casts were 124 μm (±34) μm for the transfer technique, 116 (±46) μm for the pick-up technique, and 80 (±25) μm for the splinted pick-up technique. There were statistically significant discrepancies between the evaluated impression techniques (p ≤ 0.025; ANOVA test). The splinted pick-up impression showed the least deviation between original and stone model; transfer and pick-up techniques showed similar results. For better accuracy of implant-supported prosthodontics, the splinted pick-up technique should be used for impressions of four implants evenly spread in edentulous jaws.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">22009182</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2013</Year><Month>02</Month><Day>13</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2017</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>13</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1436-3771</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>16</Volume><Issue>4</Issue><PubDate><Year>2012</Year><Month>Aug</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Clinical oral investigations</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Clin Oral Investig</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>1137-42</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1007/s00784-011-0622-z</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>Implant-supported prosthodontics requires precise impressions to achieve a passive fit. Since the early 1990s, in vitro studies comparing different implant impression techniques were performed, capturing the data mostly mechanically. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different impression techniques digitally. Dental implants were inserted bilaterally in ten polymer lower-arch models at the positions of the first molars and canines. From each original model, three different impressions (A, transfer; B, pick-up; and C, splinted pick-up) were taken. Scan-bodies were mounted on the implants of the polymer and on the lab analogues of the stone models and digitized. The scan-body in position 36 (FDI) of the digitized original and master casts were each superimposed, and the deviations of the remaining three scan-bodies were measured three-dimensionally. The systematic error of digitizing the models was 13 μm for the polymer and 5 μm for the stone model. The mean discrepancies of the original model to the stone casts were 124 μm (±34) μm for the transfer technique, 116 (±46) μm for the pick-up technique, and 80 (±25) μm for the splinted pick-up technique. There were statistically significant discrepancies between the evaluated impression techniques (p ≤ 0.025; ANOVA test). The splinted pick-up impression showed the least deviation between original and stone model; transfer and pick-up techniques showed similar results. For better accuracy of implant-supported prosthodontics, the splinted pick-up technique should be used for impressions of four implants evenly spread in edentulous jaws.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Stimmelmayr</LastName><ForeName>Michael</ForeName><Initials>M</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>michael.stimmelmayr@med.uni-muenchen.de</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Erdelt</LastName><ForeName>Kurt</ForeName><Initials>K</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Güth</LastName><ForeName>Jan-Frederik</ForeName><Initials>JF</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Happe</LastName><ForeName>Arndt</ForeName><Initials>A</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Beuer</LastName><ForeName>Florian</ForeName><Initials>F</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D023362">Evaluation Studies</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2011</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>19</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Germany</Country><MedlineTA>Clin Oral Investig</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>9707115</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>1432-6981</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D015921">Dental Implants</NameOfSubstance></Chemical><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D003760">Dental Impression Materials</NameOfSubstance></Chemical><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="C022821">Impregum</NameOfSubstance></Chemical><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D012117">Resins, Synthetic</NameOfSubstance></Chemical></ChemicalList><CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset><CommentsCorrectionsList><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jan-Feb;25(1):86-94</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20209190</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Oral Rehabil. 1996 Nov;23(11):782-9</RefSource><PMID Version="1">8953484</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Quintessence Int. 2010 Nov-Dec;41(10):845-53</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20927421</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994 Mar-Apr;9(2):169-78</RefSource><PMID Version="1">8206552</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992 Winter;7(4):468-75</RefSource><PMID Version="1">1299642</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1992;12(2):112-21</RefSource><PMID Version="1">1521993</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Jun;69(6):588-93</RefSource><PMID Version="1">8320644</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Oct;100(4):285-91</RefSource><PMID Version="1">18922257</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 May-Jun;12(3):371-5</RefSource><PMID Version="1">9197102</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Implant Dent. 2010 Apr;19(2):167-74</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20386220</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Dent Res. 2009 Aug;88(8):725-30</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19734459</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 2000 May;83(5):555-61</RefSource><PMID Version="1">10793388</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jul-Aug;25(4):715-21</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20657866</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Mar-Apr;19(2):192-8</RefSource><PMID Version="1">15101589</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Sep-Oct;22(5):761-8</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17974110</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Dent Res. 2009 Aug;88(8):731-5</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19734460</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Jun;16(3):851-6</RefSource><PMID Version="1">21647591</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12(1):11-28</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19213357</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Feb;89(2):186-92</RefSource><PMID Version="1">12616240</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Jan-Feb;23(1):39-47</RefSource><PMID Version="1">18416411</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009 Sep;11(3):214-21</RefSource><PMID Version="1">18657149</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2004 Mar;12(1):9-14</RefSource><PMID Version="1">15058176</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Mar-Apr;23(2):226-36</RefSource><PMID Version="1">18548918</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Mar;21(3):328-35</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20074246</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Sep-Oct;21(5):747-55</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17066636</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthodont. 1993 Jun;2(2):75-82</RefSource><PMID Version="1">8242170</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Jan-Feb;15(1):76-94</RefSource><PMID Version="1">10697942</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jul-Aug;25(4):752-8</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20657870</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990 Winter;5(4):331-6</RefSource><PMID Version="1">2094651</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Implant Dent. 2001;10(2):85-92</RefSource><PMID Version="1">11450418</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Jun;97(6):349-56</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17618917</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 1993 May;69(5):503-9</RefSource><PMID Version="1">8483130</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991 Winter;6(4):448-55</RefSource><PMID Version="1">1820314</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Br Dent J. 2006 Oct 7;201(7):429-32</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17031344</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Clin Oral Investig. 2010 Aug;14(4):427-32</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19629543</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Jan;77(1):68-75</RefSource><PMID Version="1">9029468</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Apr;63(4):444-7</RefSource><PMID Version="1">2184229</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Sep;88(3):329-36</RefSource><PMID Version="1">12426505</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 1999 Jan;81(1):7-13</RefSource><PMID Version="1">9878969</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Implant Dent. 2007 Jun;16(2):187-94</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17563509</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010 May;12 Suppl 1:e63-76</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19438937</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Nov;92(5):470-6</RefSource><PMID Version="1">15523336</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Implant Dent. 2004 Dec;13(4):358-66</RefSource><PMID Version="1">15591998</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996 Mar-Apr;11(2):216-22</RefSource><PMID Version="1">8666454</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Dec;19(12):1276-84</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19040443</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Clin Dent. 2007;18(2):29-33</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17508620</PMID></CommentsCorrections></CommentsCorrectionsList><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003481" MajorTopicYN="N">Cuspid</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003724" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Arch</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="N">pathology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D059605" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Implant-Abutment Design</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D015921" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Implants</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003760" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Impression Materials</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000737" MajorTopicYN="N">chemistry</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003761" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Impression Technique</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000295" MajorTopicYN="N">instrumentation</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000592" MajorTopicYN="Y">standards</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000706" MajorTopicYN="N">statistics & numerical data</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003765" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Models</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019094" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007091" MajorTopicYN="N">Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000706" MajorTopicYN="N">statistics & numerical data</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D021621" MajorTopicYN="N">Imaging, Three-Dimensional</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007575" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="N">pathology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008334" MajorTopicYN="N">Mandible</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="Y">pathology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008963" MajorTopicYN="N">Molar</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D012117" MajorTopicYN="N">Resins, Synthetic</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000737" MajorTopicYN="N">chemistry</QualifierName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2011</Year><Month>06</Month><Day>22</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2011</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>02</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2011</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>20</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2011</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>20</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2013</Year><Month>2</Month><Day>14</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">22009182</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/s00784-011-0622-z</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000F93 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000F93 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:22009182
|texte= Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:22009182" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |