Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Marginal discrepancy of CAD-CAM complete-arch fixed implant-supported frameworks

Published:February 21, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.021

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) high-density polymers (HDPs) have recently been marketed for the fabrication of long-term interim implant-supported fixed prostheses. However, information regarding the precision of fit of CAD-CAM HDP implant-supported complete-arch screw-retained prostheses is scarce.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal discrepancy of CAD-CAM HDP complete-arch implant-supported screw-retained fixed prosthesis frameworks and compare them with conventional titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zir) frameworks.

      Material and methods

      A screw-retained complete-arch acrylic resin prototype with multiunit abutments was fabricated on a typodont model with 2 straight implants in the anterior region and 2 implants with a 30-degree distal tilt in the posterior region. A 3-dimensional (3D) laboratory laser scanner was used to digitize the typodont model with scan bodies and the resin prototype to generate a virtual 3D CAD framework. A CAM milling unit was used to fabricate 5 frameworks from HDP, Ti, and Zir blocks. The 1-screw test was performed by tightening the prosthetic screw in the maxillary left first molar abutment (terminal location) when the frameworks were on the typodont model, and the marginal discrepancy of frameworks was evaluated using an industrial computed tomographic scanner and a 3D volumetric software. The 3D marginal discrepancy at the abutment-framework interface of the maxillary left canine (L1), right canine (L2), and right first molar (L3) sites was measured. The mean values for 3D marginal discrepancy were calculated for each location in a group with 95% confidence limits. The results were analyzed by repeated-measures 2-way ANOVA using the restricted maximum likelihood estimation and the Satterthwaite degrees of freedom methods, which do not require normality and homoscedasticity in the data. The between-subjects factor was material, the within-subjects factor was location, and the interaction was included in the model. Tukey tests were applied to resolve any statistically significant source of variation (overall α=.05).

      Results

      The 3D marginal discrepancy measurement was possible only for L2 and L3 because the L1 values were too small to detect. The mean discrepancy values at L2 were 60 μm for HDP, 74 μm for Ti, and 84 μm for Zir. At the L3 location, the mean discrepancy values were 55 μm for HDP, 102 μm for Ti, and 94 μm for Zir. The ANOVA did not find a statistically significant overall effect for implant location (P=.072) or a statistically significant interaction of location and material (P=.078), but it did find a statistically significant overall effect of material (P=.019). Statistical differences were found overall between HDP and the other 2 materials (P≤.037).

      Conclusions

      When the tested materials were used with the CAD-CAM system, the 3D marginal discrepancy of CAD-CAM HDP frameworks was smaller than that of titanium or zirconia frameworks.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Babbush C.A.
        • Kanawati A.
        • Kotsakis G.A.
        • Hinrichs J.E.
        Patient-related and financial outcomes analysis of conventional full-arch rehabilitation versus the All-on-4 concept: a cohort study.
        Implant Dent. 2014; 23: 218-224
        • Skalak R.
        Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 49: 843-848
        • Guichet D.L.
        • Yoshinobu D.
        • Caputo A.A.
        Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87: 528-535
        • Clelland N.L.
        • Seidt J.D.
        • Daroz L.G.
        • McGlumphy E.A.
        Comparison of strains for splinted and nonsplinted implant prostheses using three-dimensional image correlation.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 953-959
        • Bergkvist G.
        • Simonsson K.
        • Rydberg K.
        • Johansson F.
        • Dérand T.
        A finite element analysis of stress distribution in bone tissue surrounding uncoupled or splinted dental implants.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008; 10: 40-46
        • Wang T.M.
        • Leu L.J.
        • Wang J.
        • Lin L.D.
        Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: a numeric analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17: 231-237
        • Shigemitsu R.
        • Ogawa T.
        • Matsumoto T.
        • Yoda N.
        • Gunji Y.
        • Yamakawa Y.
        • et al.
        Stress distribution in the peri-implant bone with splinted and non-splinted implants by in vivo loading data-based finite element analysis.
        Odontology. 2013; 101: 222-226
        • Brånemark P.I.
        • Hansson B.O.
        • Adell R.
        • Breine U.
        • Lindström J.
        • Hallén O.
        • et al.
        Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period.
        Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977; 16: 1-132
        • Brånemark P.I.
        Osseointegration and its experimental background.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 50: 399-410
        • Jivraj S.
        • Chee W.
        Treatment planning of implants in posterior quadrants.
        Br Dent J. 2006; 201: 13-23
        • Sahin S.
        • Cehreli M.C.
        The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status.
        Implant Dent. 2001; 10: 85-92
        • Watanabe F.
        • Uno I.
        • Hata Y.
        • Neuendorff G.
        • Kirsch A.
        Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15: 209-218
        • Karl M.
        • Rosch S.
        • Graef F.
        • Taylor T.D.
        • Heckmann S.M.
        Strain situation after fixation of three-unit ceramic veneered implant superstructures.
        Implant Dent. 2005; 14: 157-165
        • Jokstad A.
        • Shokati B.
        New 3D technologies applied to assess the long-term clinical effects of misfit of the full jaw fixed prosthesis on dental implants.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1129-1134
        • Yannikakis S.
        • Prombonas A.
        Improving the fit of implant prosthetics: an in vitro study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 126-134
        • Gunne J.
        • Jemt T.
        • Lindén B.
        Implant treatment in partially edentulous patients: a report on prostheses after 3 years.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1994; 7: 143-148
        • Kreissl M.E.
        • Gerds T.
        • Muche R.
        • Heydecke G.
        • Strub J.R.
        Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18: 720-726
        • Scarano A.
        • Assenza B.
        • Piattelli M.
        • Iezzi G.
        • Leghissa G.C.
        • Quaranta A.
        • et al.
        A 16-year study of the microgap between 272 human titanium implants and their abutments.
        J Oral Implantol. 2005; 31: 269-275
        • de França D.G.
        • Morais M.H.
        • das Neves F.D.
        • Barbosa G.A.
        Influence of CAD/CAM on the fit accuracy of implant-supported zirconia and cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 22-28
        • Abduo J.
        • Judge R.B.
        Implications of implant framework misfit: a systematic review of biomechanical sequelae.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 608-621
        • Katsoulis J.
        • Mericske-Stern R.
        • Rotkina L.
        • Zbären C.
        • Enkling N.
        • Blatz M.B.
        Precision of fit of implant-supported screw retained 10-unit computer-aided-designed and computer-aided- manufactured frameworks made from zirconium dioxide and titanium: an in vitro study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 165-174
        • Katsoulis J.
        • Müller P.
        • Mericske-Stern R.
        • Blatz M.B.
        CAD/CAM fabrication accuracy of long- vs short-span implant supported FDPs.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 245-249
        • Paniz G.
        • Stellini E.
        • Meneghello R.
        • Cerardi A.
        • Gobbato E.A.
        • Bressan E.
        The precision of fit of cast and milled full-arch implant-supported restorations.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 687-693
        • Al-Meraikhi H.
        • Yilmaz B.
        • McGlumphy E.A.
        • Brantley W.A.
        • Johnston W.M.
        In vitro fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated implant-fixed titanium and zirconia complete dental prosthesis fabricated on 4 implants.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 409-416
        • Yilmaz B.
        • Alshahrani F.A.
        • Kale E.
        • Johnston W.M.
        Effect of feldspathic porcelain application on the marginal discrepancy of zirconia and titanium complete-arch fixed implant-supported frameworks.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2 February 2018; (Epub ahead of print.)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.003
        • Maló P.
        • Rangert B.
        • Nobre M.
        “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003; 5: 2-9
        • Drago C.
        Cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of ınterim, acrylic resin, full-arch screw-retained prostheses and their relationship to prosthetic complications.
        J Prosthodont. 2016; 26: 502-507
        • Yilmaz B.
        CAD-CAM high-density polymer implant-supported fixed diagnostic prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 688-692
        • Yilmaz B.
        • Alp G.
        • Seidt J.
        • Johnston W.M.
        • Vitter R.
        • McGlumphy E.A.
        Fracture analysis of CAD-CAM high-density polymers used for interim implant-supported fixed, cantilevered prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 5 Jan 2018; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.09.017
        • Ercoli C.
        • Geminiani A.
        • Feng C.
        • Lee H.
        The influence of verification jig on framework fit for nonsegmented fixed implant-supported complete denture.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14: e188-e195
        • Eisenmann E.
        • Mokabberi A.
        • Walter M.H.
        • Freesmeyer W.B.
        Improving the fit of implant-supported superstructures using the spark erosion technique.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19: 810-818
        • International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025
        General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
        International Organization for Standardization, Geneva2005 (Available at:)
        • McLean J.W.
        • von Fraunhofer J.A.
        The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique.
        Br Dent J. 1971; 131: 107-111
        • Katsoulis J.
        • Mericske-Stern R.
        • Enkling N.
        • Katsoulis K.
        • Blatz M.B.
        In vitro precision of fit of computer-aided designed and computer-aided manufactured titanium screw-retained fixed dental prostheses before and after ceramic veneering.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 44-49
        • Sorensen J.A.
        A standardized method for determination of crown margin fidelity.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64: 18-24
        • Karataşli O.
        • Kursoğlu P.
        • Capa N.
        • Kazazoğlu E.
        Comparison of the marginal fit of different coping materials and designs produced by computer aided manufacturing systems.
        Dent Mater J. 2011; 30: 97-102
        • Jemt T.
        Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991; 6: 270-276
        • Vitale N.D.
        • Tung F.
        • Goldstein G.
        A technique to verify or correct analogue position and soft tissue profile on an implant working cast.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 102: 137-140
        • Henry P.J.
        An alternative method for the production of accurate casts and occlusal records in osseointegrated implant rehabilitation.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1987; 58: 694-697
        • Goll G.E.
        Production of accurately fitting full-arch implant frameworks: part I-clinical procedures.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 66: 377-384
        • Papazian S.
        • Morgano S.M.
        Use of aluminum strips to fabricate verification jig for an implant-supported fixed partial denture.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 79: 350-352
        • Hashemzadeh S.
        • Yilmaz B.
        • Zugaro F.
        • McGlumphy E.
        An alternative conversion technique for fabricating an interim fixed implant-supported complete arch prosthesis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 647-651
        • Balshi T.J.
        • Wolfinger G.J.
        Conversion prosthesis: a transitional fixed implant-supported prosthesis for an edentulous arch-a technical note.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11: 106-111
        • Hjalmarsson L.
        • Ortorp A.
        • Smedberg J.I.
        • Jemt T.
        Precision of fit to implants: a comparison of Cresco and Procera implant bridge frameworks.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 12: 271-280