. 2024 Apr 28;16(4):e59193. doi: 10.7759/cureus.59193

Table 4. Independent samples t-test for comparison between materials within the technique.

*Significant difference (P<0.05)

Technique	Variable	Material	n	Mean difference	SD	t-test	P
Closed tray	Error rate for parallel implants (%)	Polyvinyl siloxane	10	0.71	0.45	0.648	0.525
	Error rate for parallel implants (%)	Vinylsiloxanether	10	0.60	0.27	0.648	0.525
	Error rate for angulated implants (%)	Polyvinyl siloxane	10	1.16	0.63	1.051	0.307
	Error rate for angulated implants (%)	Vinylsiloxanether	10	0.85	0.70	1.051	0.307
Open tray	Error rate for parallel implants (%)	Polyvinyl siloxane	10	0.46	0.34	0.763	0.455
	Error rate for parallel implants (%)	Vinylsiloxanether	10	0.35	0.28	0.763	0.455
	Error rate for angulated implants (%)	Polyvinyl siloxane	10	0.51	0.30	0.658	0.519
	Error rate for angulated implants (%)	Vinylsiloxanether	10	0.59	0.27	0.658	0.519
Open tray with sandblasting and adhesive coating of impression copings	Error rate for parallel implants (%)	Polyvinyl siloxane	10	0.39	0.22	2.304	0.033*
	Error rate for parallel implants (%)	Vinylsiloxanether	10	0.19	0.17	2.304	0.033*
	Error rate for angulated implants (%)	Polyvinyl siloxane	10	0.33	0.27	0.911	0.375
	Error rate for angulated implants (%)	Vinylsiloxanether	10	0.46	0.34	0.911	0.375