The Effect of Implant Angulation on the Transfer Accuracy of External‐Connection Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate recording of implant location is required in every implant-supported prostheses. Implant angulation, which is inevitable in various clinical situations, could affect the impression accuracy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the transfer accuracy of straight and tilted implants of All-on-4 protocol with implant or abutment level impression making and different techniques of direct and indirect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One reference model of edentulous maxilla with four external connection implants (Brånemark) inserted according to All-on-4 protocol was made. Forty impressions of this model were made at implant (groups 1 and 2) or abutment (groups 3 and 4) levels with different techniques of direct or indirect, respectively. Impressions were poured with type IV dental stone. Coordinate measuring machine was used to record x, y, and z coordinates and also angular dislocation of implants. These measurements were compared with the equals calculated on the reference model. Data were analyzed with univariate analysis of variance and t-test at α = 0.05. RESULTS: The results showed that abutment level impression making (groups 3 and 4), either with direct or indirect technique, produced the same results for straight and tilted implants of Δr variable (p > .05), though in implant level groups (groups 1 and 2), it was statistically significant (p < .05). However, only implant level impression making with direct technique (group 1) had the same results of angular accuracy for straight and tilted implants. CONCLUSION: Impression technique (direct or indirect) had significant effect on the impression accuracy of tilted implants, and direct technique produced less inaccuracy. Also, abutment level impressions showed more accuracy than implant level impressions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".