The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Role of span length in the adaptation of implant-supported cobalt chromium frameworks fabricated by three techniques

  • Zhou, Ying (Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University) ;
  • Li, Yong (Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University) ;
  • Ma, Xiao (Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University) ;
  • Huang, Yiqing (Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University) ;
  • Wang, Jiawei (Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University)
  • Received : 2016.08.08
  • Accepted : 2017.02.07
  • Published : 2017.04.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study evaluated the effect of span length on the adaptation of implant-supported cobalt chromium frameworks fabricated by three techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Models with two solid abutment analogs at different inter-abutment distances were digitized using a laboratory scanner. Frameworks of two-, three-, and four-unit fixed prostheses were designed by a computer. Six dots with a diameter of 0.2 mm were preset on the surface of each framework. A total of 54 implant-supported cobalt chromium frameworks were fabricated by milling, selective laser melting (SLM), and cast techniques. The frameworks were scanned and exported as Stereolithography files. Distances between two dots in X, Y, and Z coordinates were measured in both the designed and fabricated frameworks. Marginal gaps between the framework and the abutments were also evaluated by impression replica method. RESULTS. In terms of distance measurement, significant differences were found between three- and four-unit frameworks, as well as between two- and four-unit frameworks prepared by milling technique (P<.05). Significant differences were also noted between two- and three-unit frameworks, as well as between two- and four-unit frameworks prepared by cast technique (P<.05). The milling technique presented smaller differences than the SLM technique, and the SLM technique showed smaller differences than the cast technique at any unit prostheses (P<.05). Evaluation with the impression replica method indicated significant differences among the span lengths for any fabrication method (P<.05), as well as among the fabrication methods at any unit prostheses (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The adaptation of implant-supported cobalt chromium frameworks was affected by the span length and fabrication method.

Keywords

References

  1. Att W, Hoischen T, Gerds T, Strub JR. Marginal adaptation of all-ceramic crowns on implant abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10:218-25.
  2. Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:506-15.
  3. Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 2001;10:85-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-200104000-00003
  4. Takahashi T, Gunne J. Fit of implant frameworks: an in vitro comparison between two fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:256-60. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.40
  5. de Franca DG, Morais MH, das Neves FD, Barbosa GA. Influence of CAD/CAM on the fit accuracy of implant-supported zirconia and cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:22-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.07.010
  6. Sun J, Zhang FQ. The application of rapid prototyping in prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2012;21:641-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00888.x
  7. de Araujo GM, de Franca DG, Silva Neto JP, Barbosa GA. Passivity of conventional and CAD/CAM fabricated implant frameworks. Braz Dent J 2015;26:277-83. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201300145
  8. Witkowski S, Komine F, Gerds T. Marginal accuracy of titanium copings fabricated by casting and CAD/CAM techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:47-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.05.013
  9. Fernandez M, Delgado L, Molmeneu M, Garcia D, Rodriguez D. Analysis of the misfit of dental implant-supported prostheses made with three manufacturing processes. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:116-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.006
  10. Nesse H, Ulstein DM, Vaage MM, Oilo M. Internal and marginal fit of cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses fabricated with 3 different techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:686-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.05.007
  11. Xu D, Xiang N, Wei B. The marginal fit of selective laser melting-fabricated metal crowns: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1437-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.018
  12. Rahme HY, Tehini GE, Adib SM, Ardo AS, Rifai KT. In vitro evaluation of the "replica technique" in the measurement of the fit of Procera crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:25-32.
  13. Lee JY, Choi SJ, Kim MS, Kim HY, Kim YS, Shin SW. Effect of span length on the fit of zirconia framework fabricated using CAD/CAM system. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5:118-25. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.2.118
  14. Anunmana C, Charoenchitt M, Asvanund C. Gap comparison between single crown and three-unit bridge zirconia substructures. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:253-8. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.4.253
  15. Tiossi R, Gomes EA, Lapria Faria AC, Silveira Rodrigues RC, Ribeiro RF. Effect of cyclic loading on the vertical microgap of long-span zirconia frameworks supported by 4 or 6 implants. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:828-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.007
  16. Strub JR, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1289-96. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0389
  17. Sundar MK, Chikmagalur SB, Pasha F. Marginal fit and microleakage of cast and metal laser sintered copings-an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2014;58:252-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2014.07.002
  18. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Handel G. Marginal integrity of CAD/CAM fixed partial dentures. Eur J Dent 2007;1: 25-30.
  19. Karl M, Graef F, Wichmann M, Krafft T. Passivity of fit of CAD/CAM and copy-milled frameworks, veneered frameworks, and anatomically contoured, zirconia ceramic, implantsupported fixed prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:232-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60067-5
  20. Zeng L, Zhang Y, Liu Z, Wei B. Effects of repeated firing on the marginal accuracy of Co-Cr copings fabricated by selective laser melting. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:135-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.004
  21. Ucar Y, Akova T, Akyil MS, Brantley WA. Internal fit evaluation of crowns prepared using a new dental crown fabrication technique: laser-sintered Co-Cr crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2009; 102:253-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60165-7

Cited by

  1. Comparative Study of the Fit Accuracy of Full-Arch Bar Frameworks Fabricated with Different Presintered Cobalt-Chromium Alloys vol.2018, pp.2314-6141, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1962514
  2. Precision of the milled full-arch framework fabricated using pre-sintered soft alloy: A pilot study vol.10, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.128
  3. Marginal Accuracy of Milled Versus Cast Cobalt Chromium Alloys in Long Span Implant-Supported Frameworks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis vol.11, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/2320206820952303