国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1970.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Massachusetts. Lowell, 1997. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1970.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1957.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1955.

Thesis (M.S.)--West Virginia University, 2000. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains vii, 47 p. : ill. (some col.) Vita. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 41-46).

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Massachusetts. Lowell, 1997. / Includes bibliographical references.

Considerando as dificuldades envolvidas no processo de moldagem com a moldeira aberta convencional, objetivou-se neste estudo avaliar a precisão da moldagem de transferência de implantes dentais utilizando uma nova moldeira, desenvolvida com o objetivo de facilitar a técnica de moldagem. Foi confeccionado um modelo de referência de uma mandíbula edentada e instalados quatro implantes nas regiões dos elementos 44, 42, 32 e 34, denominados implantes 1, 2, 3 e 4, respectivamente. Sobre este modelo confeccionou-se uma barra de Cr-Co, para análise do desajuste. Foram realizadas 10 moldagens com silicona de adição para cada grupo (controle, moldeira aberta convencional) e teste (nova moldeira, Miratray Implant!) do modelo de referência, e após obtenção do modelo em gesso, a barra metálica foi parafusada somente no implante 1, e medida a fenda gerada na face vestibular dos implantes 3 e 4 por meio de microscópio óptico com aumento de 16x. As imagens foram analisadas por um único operador no tempo inicial e após uma semana por meio do software ImageLab. Os grupos foram comparados pelo teste de Mann-Whitney e Wilcoxon, com nível de significância estabelecido em 5%, pelo software estatístico SPSS. Os resultados mostraram diferença estatística (p = 0,04) ao comparar a média da primeira repetição do implante 3 (teste x controle); ao comparar a primeira repetição com a segunda para o implante 4 apenas no grupo controle; e na comparação dos valores máximos entre os implantes 3 e 4 do grupo controle. Em relação aos valores máximos do implante 3, obteve-se a média de 116 ± 45 m para o grupo controle, e 158 ±17 m para o grupo teste. Já para o implante 4, obteve-se a média de 106 ± 46 m para o grupo controle e 156 ± 22 m para o grupo teste. Considerando que o máximo desajuste permitido seria de 150 m, apenas o grupo controle teria um desajuste considerado aceitável clinicamente para o implante 3, entretanto sem diferença estatística para o implante 4. Como os valores dos grupos teste e controle foram muito próximos, dentro das limitações deste estudo pode-se concluir que a nova moldeira promove uma precisão do sistema barra/implante muito próxima à moldeira aberta convencional. / Considering the difficulties involved in the impression taking process when using the conventional open impression tray, the aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of transfer impression of dental implants using a new impression tray developed with the object of facilitating the impression-taking technique. A reference model of an edentulous mandible was fabricated, and four implants were placed in the regions of teeth 44, 42, 32 and 34, denominated implants 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. To analyze misfit, a Cr-Co bar was fabricated on this model. Ten impressions were taken with polyvinyl siloxane for each group (control, conventional open impression tray) and test (new impression tray, Miratray Implant!) from the reference model. After obtaining the plaster model, a metal bar was screw-retained on implant 1 only, and the gap generated at the vestibular face of implants 3 and 4 was measured by optical microcopy at 16x magnification. A single operator analyzed the images at the initial time and after one week, using ImageLab software. Groups were compared by the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests, with level of significance established at 5%, using statistical SPSS software. The results showed statistical difference (p = 0.04) when the mean of the first repetition of implant 3 (test x control) was compared; when the first repetition was compared with the second, for implant 4 only in control group; and in comparison of the maximum values between implants 3 and 4 of control group. As regards maximum values of implant 3, a mean of 116 ± 45 m was obtained for control group, and 158 ±17 m for test group. Whereas, for implant 4, a mean of 106 ± 46 m was obtained for control group and 156 ± 22 m for test group. Considering that the maximum misfit permitted would be 150 m, only control group would have a misfit considered clinically acceptable for implant 3, however, without statistical difference for implant 4. As the test and control group values were very close, within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that the new impression tray promotes bar/implant system accuracy very close to that of the conventional open impression tray.

Background: Digital impressions are becoming increasingly favored among dentists and dental technicians in Sweden. The knowledge about the use of digital impression techniques is important to improve the clinical work for dentists and dental technicians. However, the conventional impression techniques are still widely used although the digital impression techniques have become more preferred nowadays. Aim: The aim of this survey study was to investigate the use of digital impressions among dentists and dental technicians in Sweden. Pros and cons with the digital impression techniques were investigated as well as the areas in which it is used.  Method: Questionnaires were sent by post to dentists and dental technicians with different questions suited to each profession. The questionnaires were distributed to four regions representing the southern, western, eastern, and northern parts of the country. The questions contained information about the use of digital impressions.   Results: Fixed prosthodontics and the production of mouth guards are areas in which the digital impression techniques are most frequently used. Dentists believed that precision, time saving impression procedure and patient comfort were the greatest advantages with the digital impression techniques. Dental technicians thought that time, cost, possibility to reuse digital impressions and the minimization of the sources of error were the greatest advantages with the digital impression techniques.    Conclusions: The digital impression techniques are widely used among dentists and dental technicians, specifically within fixed prosthodontics and the production of mouth guards.