Search

Statement of problem Little is known about whether the misfit level of implant-supported screw-retained prostheses can be tolerated when different combinations of engaging and nonengaging titanium bases are used. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to simulate prosthetic workflow distortions (horizontal and vertical) and to evaluate the fit (passive and active) of 2-implant-supported screw-retained zirconia frameworks with 3 different combinations of abutments: both engaging, engaging and nonengaging, and both nonengaging. Material and methods The fit of both engaging (n=10), engaging and nonengaging (n=10), and both nonengaging (n=10) 2-implant-supported zirconia frameworks was evaluated on control and definitive casts simulating 50-, 100-, and 150-μm vertical and 35-, 70-, 100-μm horizontal misfit levels. Stereomicroscopy was used to assess the passive fit (1 screw tightened) and active fit (both screws tightened) of the zirconia frameworks. Vertical deviations in the implant and abutment connection (the implant-abutment gap measured vertically) between the implant platform and reference line on the titanium base were measured. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=.05) were used to compare different implant-supported zirconia specimens on each definitive cast. Results When 1 screw was tightened, both engaging specimens had higher vertical deviations (ranging from 40.1 to 131.1 μm) in 35- and 70-μm horizontal misfit levels, as compared with engaging and nonengaging (19.8 to 85.1 μm) and both nonengaging (6.6 to 14.3 μm) specimens. Comparing medians of the 100-μm misfit in horizontal (engaging and nonengaging 140.4 μm; both nonengaging 151.6 μm) and vertical (engaging and nonengaging 49.8 μm; both nonengaging 42.6 μm) directions, the horizontal misfits caused larger vertical deviations. When both screws were tightened in 50-, 100-, and 150-μm vertical misfit groups, the vertical gap increase in the engaging and nonengaging specimens was significantly higher than that in both the nonengaging specimens (P

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of the study was to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions for fixed dental prosthesis under in vitro and in vivo conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients (five women and three men) with at least one edentulous arch and with 4-6 osseointegrated implants participated in this study. For each edentulous arch (n = 10), experimental screw-retained titanium bar with attached four scan bodies was fabricated. The bar containing four scan bodies was screw-retained intraorally on implants and scanned with Trios 3 intraoral scanner eight times (IOS group, in vivo). Then, the bar was attached to the master cast and scanned eight times again with the same intraoral scanner (MIOS group, in vitro). Finally, the bar with scan bodies was scanned 8 times with a laboratory scanner (reference). Precision and trueness were calculated for 3 distances and 3 angles between the scan bodies (1-2, 1-3, and 1-4) in IOS and MIOS groups. RESULTS: Precision and trueness for the largest distance (1-4) were found to be 44 ± 18 µm and 32 ± 19 µm for the IOS group and 31 ± 16 µm and 30 ± 14 µm for MIOS group, respectively. Precision and trueness for the angle between the most distant scan bodies (1-4) were 0.22 ± 0.14° and 0.18 ± 0.10° for the IOS group and 0.16 ± 0.11° and 0.07 ± 0.05° for MIOS group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoral conditions moderately affected the precision and trueness of Trios 3 (3Shape) intraoral scanner. Results of in vitro accuracy studies cannot be directly transferred to the clinical field.

BACKGROUND Long-term success of implant-supported restorations can be affected by the accuracy of the prosthodontic workflow which may differ between conventional and digital techniques. PURPOSE The purpose was to compare the fit of two-implant-supported restorations, fabricated using conventional and digital workflows and to assess the influence of distance and angulation between the implants on the passive fit of the prosthesis. The SR test was selected to evaluate the fit of two-implant-supported zirconia restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-eight zirconia two-implant-supported restorations were fabricated according to conventional (group C, n = 24) and digital (group D, n = 24) workflows. The SR parameter was calculated as a difference of rotation angles of each screw in passive and nonpassive situations. SR values between groups C and D were compared by performing measurements intraorally, on master and control casts. RESULTS SR intraorally in group C (16.25 ± 15.52°) was higher than it was in group D (13.85 ± 10.78°), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .557). While measuring SR on the master cast, group C SR (6.04 ± 7.43°) had lower values than group D (13.12 ± 13.86°) (P = .0039). No statistically significant correlations were found between SR measurements and inter-implant distance or angulation. Restorations with inter-implant angle higher than 10° differed significantly from those with less than 10° angulation. CONCLUSIONS Digital restorations had a better fit on the control cast, which was used as a reference in this study. Angulation of more than 10° between the implants could negatively affect the passive fit of the digitally fabricated restorations intraorally.

Purpose The newest technologies for digital implant impression (DII) taking are developing rapidly and showing acceptable clinical results. However, scientific literature is lacking data from clinical studies about the accuracy of DII. The aim of this study was to compare digital and conventional dental implant impressions (CII) in a clinical environment. Materials and methods Twenty-four fixed zirconia restorations supported by 2 implants were fabricated using conventional open-tray impression technique with splinted transfers (CII group) and scan with Trios 3 IOS (3Shape) (DII group). After multiple verification procedures, master models were scanned using laboratory scanner D800 (3Shape). 3D models from conventional and digital workflow were imported to reverse engineering software and superimposed with high resolution 3D CAD models of scan bodies. Distance between center points, angulation, rotation, vertical shift, and surface mismatch of the scan bodies were measured and compared between conventional and digital impressions. Results Statistically significant differences were found for: a) inter-implant distance, b) rotation, c) vertical shift, and d) surface mismatch differences, comparing DII and CII groups for mesial and dist al implant scan bodies (P≤.05). Conclusion Recorded linear differences between digital and conventional impressions were of limited clinical significance with two implant-supported restorations.

Transferring the implant position from the mouth to the definitive cast is one of the most critical steps in implant prosthodontics. To achieve a passive fit of the prosthesis, an accurate implant impression is crucial because discrepancies can induce both biologic and technical complications. Analysis of available research data suggests that a direct (pick-up) impression technique with splinted copings is the technique of choice, particularly for multiple implants. However, the traditional method of splinting the copings with autopolymerizing acrylic resin is a technique-sensitive and time- consuming procedure. This report describes a straightforward method of splinting impression copings with light-polymerizing acrylic resin, with minimal amount of autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The method also can be used to verify splinting accuracy.