This study evaluated the effect of a modified tray design on the accuracy of implant impressions in comparison with the non-splinted and splinted impression techniques. Two titanium frameworks were produced to fit two parallel implants and two divergent implants with a 15^o angle. According to the frameworks employed, two acrylic resin master models were fabricated. For each model, 10 impressions were taken with every technique. The maximum framework principal strain was calculated for every generated cast. For the parallel implant model, the strains of the non-splinted (118.4 με), splinted (89.0 με), and modified tray design impression (49.4 με) techniques were statistically similar (P = 0.16). For the divergent implant model, all the impression techniques showed a considerably higher strain than the parallel implant model. The splinted (287.0 με) and the modified (262.9 με) tray design impression techniques showed similar strains for the divergent implant model, which were significantly less than the strains for the non-splinted impression (518.0 με) technique (P < 0.05). Therefore, for two parallel implants, all the impression techniques exhibited similar accuracy. When angulation existed between the implants, the splinted and the modified tray design impression techniques were more accurate than the non-splinted impression technique.

这项研究与非夹板和夹板压印技术相比，评估了改良的托盘设计对植入物压印精度的影响。两个框架钛制作，以适应两个平行的植入物和具有15种趋植入^Ò角度。根据使用的框架，制造了两个丙烯酸树脂主模型。对于每种模型，每种技术都会获得10次印象。计算每个生成的铸件的最大框架主应变。对于平行种植体模型，非夹板（118.4με），夹板（89.0με）和改良的托盘设计压模（49.4με）技术的应变在统计上相似（P= 0.16）。对于发散的植入物模型，所有压印技术均显示出比平行植入物模型高得多的应变。夹板（287.0με）和改良（262.9με）托盘设计压模技术显示出不同的植入物模型应变，这些应变显着小于非夹板压模（518.0με）的应变（P <0.05）。因此，对于两个平行植入物，所有压印技术均显示出相似的精度。当植入物之间存在角度时，夹板和改良的托盘设计压模技术比非夹板压模技术更准确。