Burak Yilmaz DDS, PhD, Mustafa Borga Donmez DDS, PhD, Mehmet Esad Güven DDS, PhD, Faris Z. Jamjoom BDS, MS, DMSc, FRCDC, Çiğdem Kahveci DDS, PhD, Martin Schimmel Med Dent, Gülce Çakmak DDS, PhD
{"title":"使用新一代加法和减法聚合物制造的完整拱形种植体支撑框架的真实性和密合性:体外研究。","authors":"Burak Yilmaz DDS, PhD, Mustafa Borga Donmez DDS, PhD, Mehmet Esad Güven DDS, PhD, Faris Z. Jamjoom BDS, MS, DMSc, FRCDC, Çiğdem Kahveci DDS, PhD, Martin Schimmel Med Dent, Gülce Çakmak DDS, PhD","doi":"10.1111/cid.13362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>There is limited knowledge on the fabrication trueness and fit of additively or subtractively manufactured complete-arch implant-supported frameworks in recently introduced polymers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the trueness and marginal fit of additively or subtractively manufactured polymer-based complete-arch implant-supported frameworks, comparing with those of strength gradient zirconia frameworks.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A typodont model with 4 implants (left first molar (abutment 1), left canine (abutment 2), right canine (abutment 3), and right first molar (abutment 4)) was digitized (ATOS Core 80 5MP) and an implant-supported complete-arch framework was designed. This design file was used to fabricate frameworks from 5 different materials: strength gradient zirconia (SM-ZR), high impact polymer composite (SM-CR), nanographene-reinforced PMMA (SM-GR), PMMA (SM-PM), and additively manufactured temporary resin (AM) (<i>n</i> = 10). These frameworks were digitized and each scan file was virtually segmented into 4 regions (abutments, occlusal, overall without occlusal, and overall). The surface deviations at these regions, and linear and interimplant distance deviations were evaluated (Geomagic Control X). Marginal gaps were evaluated according to triple-scan protocol after seating frameworks on the model with the 1-screw test. Data were statistically analyzed (<i>α</i> = 0.05).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Surface deviations of all regions differed among tested materials (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). AM frameworks mostly had surface deviations that were similar to or lower than those of other materials (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.031), except for the occlusal surface, where it mostly had higher deviations (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.013). Abutment 4 of SM-CR had higher linear deviations than abutment 2 (<i>p</i> = 0.025), and material type did not affect the linear deviations within abutments (<i>p</i> ≥ 0.171). Interimplant distance deviations differed within and among materials (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.017), except for those between abutments 1 and 2 among materials (<i>p</i> = 0.387). Marginal gaps of subtractively manufactured materials differed among abutments, while those of abutments 3 and 4 differed among materials (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.003). AM frameworks mostly had lower marginal gaps at abutments 3 and 4 (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.048).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Although there was no clear trend among tested materials for measured deviations, marginal gaps of additively manufactured resin were mostly lower than those of subtractively manufactured materials and did not differ among abutment sites. Nevertheless, the differences in measured deviations among materials were small and marginal gaps were within the previously reported acceptability thresholds.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.13362","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trueness and fit of complete-arch implant-supported frameworks in new-generation additively and subtractively manufactured polymers: An in-vitro study\",\"authors\":\"Burak Yilmaz DDS, PhD, Mustafa Borga Donmez DDS, PhD, Mehmet Esad Güven DDS, PhD, Faris Z. Jamjoom BDS, MS, DMSc, FRCDC, Çiğdem Kahveci DDS, PhD, Martin Schimmel Med Dent, Gülce Çakmak DDS, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.13362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>There is limited knowledge on the fabrication trueness and fit of additively or subtractively manufactured complete-arch implant-supported frameworks in recently introduced polymers.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the trueness and marginal fit of additively or subtractively manufactured polymer-based complete-arch implant-supported frameworks, comparing with those of strength gradient zirconia frameworks.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A typodont model with 4 implants (left first molar (abutment 1), left canine (abutment 2), right canine (abutment 3), and right first molar (abutment 4)) was digitized (ATOS Core 80 5MP) and an implant-supported complete-arch framework was designed. This design file was used to fabricate frameworks from 5 different materials: strength gradient zirconia (SM-ZR), high impact polymer composite (SM-CR), nanographene-reinforced PMMA (SM-GR), PMMA (SM-PM), and additively manufactured temporary resin (AM) (<i>n</i> = 10). These frameworks were digitized and each scan file was virtually segmented into 4 regions (abutments, occlusal, overall without occlusal, and overall). The surface deviations at these regions, and linear and interimplant distance deviations were evaluated (Geomagic Control X). Marginal gaps were evaluated according to triple-scan protocol after seating frameworks on the model with the 1-screw test. Data were statistically analyzed (<i>α</i> = 0.05).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Surface deviations of all regions differed among tested materials (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). AM frameworks mostly had surface deviations that were similar to or lower than those of other materials (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.031), except for the occlusal surface, where it mostly had higher deviations (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.013). Abutment 4 of SM-CR had higher linear deviations than abutment 2 (<i>p</i> = 0.025), and material type did not affect the linear deviations within abutments (<i>p</i> ≥ 0.171). Interimplant distance deviations differed within and among materials (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.017), except for those between abutments 1 and 2 among materials (<i>p</i> = 0.387). Marginal gaps of subtractively manufactured materials differed among abutments, while those of abutments 3 and 4 differed among materials (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.003). AM frameworks mostly had lower marginal gaps at abutments 3 and 4 (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.048).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although there was no clear trend among tested materials for measured deviations, marginal gaps of additively manufactured resin were mostly lower than those of subtractively manufactured materials and did not differ among abutment sites. Nevertheless, the differences in measured deviations among materials were small and marginal gaps were within the previously reported acceptability thresholds.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.13362\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13362\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13362","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Trueness and fit of complete-arch implant-supported frameworks in new-generation additively and subtractively manufactured polymers: An in-vitro study
Background
There is limited knowledge on the fabrication trueness and fit of additively or subtractively manufactured complete-arch implant-supported frameworks in recently introduced polymers.
Purpose
To evaluate the trueness and marginal fit of additively or subtractively manufactured polymer-based complete-arch implant-supported frameworks, comparing with those of strength gradient zirconia frameworks.
Materials and Methods
A typodont model with 4 implants (left first molar (abutment 1), left canine (abutment 2), right canine (abutment 3), and right first molar (abutment 4)) was digitized (ATOS Core 80 5MP) and an implant-supported complete-arch framework was designed. This design file was used to fabricate frameworks from 5 different materials: strength gradient zirconia (SM-ZR), high impact polymer composite (SM-CR), nanographene-reinforced PMMA (SM-GR), PMMA (SM-PM), and additively manufactured temporary resin (AM) (n = 10). These frameworks were digitized and each scan file was virtually segmented into 4 regions (abutments, occlusal, overall without occlusal, and overall). The surface deviations at these regions, and linear and interimplant distance deviations were evaluated (Geomagic Control X). Marginal gaps were evaluated according to triple-scan protocol after seating frameworks on the model with the 1-screw test. Data were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).
Results
Surface deviations of all regions differed among tested materials (p ≤ 0.001). AM frameworks mostly had surface deviations that were similar to or lower than those of other materials (p ≤ 0.031), except for the occlusal surface, where it mostly had higher deviations (p ≤ 0.013). Abutment 4 of SM-CR had higher linear deviations than abutment 2 (p = 0.025), and material type did not affect the linear deviations within abutments (p ≥ 0.171). Interimplant distance deviations differed within and among materials (p ≤ 0.017), except for those between abutments 1 and 2 among materials (p = 0.387). Marginal gaps of subtractively manufactured materials differed among abutments, while those of abutments 3 and 4 differed among materials (p ≤ 0.003). AM frameworks mostly had lower marginal gaps at abutments 3 and 4 (p ≤ 0.048).
Conclusions
Although there was no clear trend among tested materials for measured deviations, marginal gaps of additively manufactured resin were mostly lower than those of subtractively manufactured materials and did not differ among abutment sites. Nevertheless, the differences in measured deviations among materials were small and marginal gaps were within the previously reported acceptability thresholds.
期刊介绍:
The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal.
The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to:
New scientific developments relating to bone
Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues
Computer aided implant designs
Computer aided prosthetic designs
Immediate implant loading
Immediate implant placement
Materials relating to bone induction and conduction
New surgical methods relating to implant placement
New materials and methods relating to implant restorations
Methods for determining implant stability
A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.