Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Midfacial Changes After Maxillary Skeletal Expander Application: A Retrospective Study.

Turkish journal of orthodontics·2025
Same author

Effect of different polishing methods on roughness and color stability of air-abraded restorative materials after artificial accelerated aging.

American journal of dentistry·2024
Same author

Comparative evaluation of stress distribution and transverse displacement of novel designs of miniplates for sagittal split ramus osteotomy in 10 mm advancements: a finite element analysis.

The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery·2022
Same author

Reverse Forsus vs. facemask/rapid palatal expansion appliances in growing subjects with mild class III malocclusions : A randomized controlled clinical study.

Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie·2021
Same author

Evaluation of the effects of two different indirect bonding methods on strength of the brackets in mandibular model of severe anterior crowding.

Microscopy research and technique·2021
Same author

Effect of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Peri-Miniscrew Fluid Prostaglandin E2 and Substance P Levels: A Controlled Clinical Trial.

Turkish journal of orthodontics·2021

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 28, 2025

Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
06:51

Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression

Published on: May 30, 2019

7.5K

Evaluation of Implant Impression Accuracy Using Different Trays and Techniques with a 3D Superimposition Method.

Gokce Unsal, Alper Caglar, Mine Tural

    The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
    |April 12, 2024
    PubMed
    Summary

    This study found no significant difference in the dimensional accuracy of dental implant impressions using various tray types and techniques. All tested methods, including stock and custom trays, are suitable for partially edentulous arches.

    Keywords:
    3DKeywords: implantaccuracydeviationimpression

    More Related Videos

    Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
    07:57

    Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision

    Published on: April 29, 2014

    13.4K
    A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
    10:42

    A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

    Published on: January 28, 2020

    6.5K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: Jun 28, 2025

    Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
    06:51

    Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression

    Published on: May 30, 2019

    7.5K
    Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
    07:57

    Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision

    Published on: April 29, 2014

    13.4K
    A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
    10:42

    A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

    Published on: January 28, 2020

    6.5K

    Area of Science:

    • Dental Materials Science
    • Prosthodontics
    • Biomaterials Engineering

    Background:

    • Accurate dental implant impressions are crucial for successful prosthodontic restorations.
    • Evaluating the dimensional accuracy of different impression trays and techniques is essential for clinical practice.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare the dimensional accuracy of dental implant impressions using five distinct tray types and two impression techniques.
    • To assess positional and angular deviations in implant impressions.

    Main Methods:

    • Five tray types (metal stock, plastic stock, LCD custom, FDM custom, UDMA custom) and two techniques (open, closed) were evaluated.
    • Impressions were made on a 3D-printed partially edentulous maxillary model with three implant analogs.
    • Positional and angular deviations were measured using 3D scanning and superimposition.

    Main Results:

    • No statistically significant differences in overall impression accuracy were found between tray types and techniques (P > .05).
    • Plastic and UDMA trays showed greater angular deviations compared to metal, FDM, and LCD trays.
    • Specific tray-technique combinations yielded variations in positional and angular deviations at different implant sites.

    Conclusions:

    • Stock trays (metal, plastic) and custom trays (conventional, 3D-printed) offer comparable dimensional accuracy for implant impressions.
    • The evaluated tray types and techniques are safe for obtaining impressions of partially edentulous maxillary arches with three implants.