In Vitro Comparison of the Dimensional Accuracy of Implant Impressions Using Custom Acrylic Trays and Prefabricated Self-Perforating Trays: Protocol for a Comparative Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The accurate transfer of implant positions from the patient's mouth to the laboratory is crucial for the successful fabrication of prostheses in implant-based prosthodontics. Making an implant impression is a crucial part of this procedure as it replicates the intraoral implant position and transfers it to the cast to be used in the laboratory for fabricating a passive fit prosthesis. The purpose of this study is to compare and assess the accuracy of implant impressions made with prefabricated self-perforating trays and custom acrylic trays. Objective: The primary objective is to compare the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions made using custom acrylic trays versus prefabricated self-perforating trays in an in vitro setting. The secondary objective is to determine whether the impressions made with prefabricated self-perforating trays achieve clinically acceptable accuracy. Methods: A partially edentulous mandibular model with implants placed at the second premolar and first molar region will function as a master model. Impressions will be made using the custom acrylic tray and prefabricated self-perforating implant impression tray. The cast obtained will be scanned, and an STL file will be generated to evaluate the accuracy of implant positions using HyperMesh software. Statistical analysis will be done with IBM SPSS Statistics at a 95% CI and 80% power. Results: The study aims to evaluate whether there is a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of implant casts obtained using prefabricated self-perforating trays versus custom acrylic trays. As of July 2025, the models have been prepared for further analysis. It is projected that data collection will be completed in May 2026, with results to be published in early 2027. Conclusions: For the success of implant dentistry, the precise fit of the final prosthesis has become a necessity. A mismatched framework may overload the implant, endangering its durability. To achieve a precise fit of the implant framework, a precise definitive cast is necessary, which depends on several factors, one of them being the implant impression tray selection. Traditionally, custom acrylic trays have been used. However, they are impractical to use in routine clinical practice due to certain disadvantages. A newer range of trays for the open tray impression technique is being marketed, and one would be able to reduce the additional expense and laboratory time associated with using custom acrylic trays by using this newer variety of self-perforating implant impression tray.
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 | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".