Digital versus conventional techniques for pattern fabrication of implant-supported frameworks

Marzieh Alikhasi; Ahmad Rohanian; Safoura Ghodsi; Amin Mohammadpour Kolde

doi:10.4103/ejd.ejd_314_17

European Journal of Dentistry, Inhaltsverzeichnis

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(01): 071-076
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_314_17

Original Article

Dental Investigation Society

Digital versus conventional techniques for pattern fabrication of implant-supported frameworks

Marzieh Alikhasi

¹Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran,

,

Ahmad Rohanian

¹Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran,

,

Safoura Ghodsi

¹Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran,

,

Amin Mohammadpour Kolde

²Dental Student Research Center, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this experimental study was to compare retention of frameworks cast from wax patterns fabricated by three different methods. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six implant analogs connected to one-piece abutments were divided randomly into three groups according to the wax pattern fabrication method (n = 12). Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milling machine, three-dimensional printer, and conventional technique were used for fabrication of waxing patterns. All laboratory procedures were performed by an expert-reliable technician to eliminate intra-operator bias. The wax patterns were cast, finished, and seated on related abutment analogs. The number of adjustment times was recorded and analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis test. Frameworks were cemented on the corresponding analogs with zinc phosphate cement and tensile resistance test was used to measure retention value. Statistical Analysis Used: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis. Level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: The mean retentive values of 680.36 ± 21.93 N, 440.48 ± 85.98 N, and 407.23 ± 67.48 N were recorded for CAD/CAM, rapid prototyping, and conventional group, respectively. One-way ANOVA test revealed significant differences among the three groups (P < 0.001). The post hoc Tukey test showed significantly higher retention for CAD/CAM group (P < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the two other groups (P = 0.54). CAD/CAM group required significantly more adjustments (P < 0.001). Conclusions: CAD/CAM-fabricated wax patterns showed significantly higher retention for implant-supported cement-retained frameworks; this could be a valuable help when there are limitations in the retention of single-unit implant restorations.

Key words:

Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing - dental implant - retention - wax pattern

Volltext

Referenzen

REFERENCES
1 Pettenò D, Schierano G, Bassi F, Bresciano ME, Carossa S. Comparison of marginal fit of 3 different metal-ceramic systems: Anin vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13: 405-8
2 Kokubo Y, Kano T, Tsumita M, Sakurai S, Itayama A, Fukushima S. et al. Retention of zirconia copings on zirconia implant abutments cemented with provisional luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 48-53
3 Shadid R, Sadaqa N. A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review. J Oral Implantol 2012; 38: 298-307
4 Lemos CA, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, Santiago Júnior JF, Verri FR, Pellizzer EP. et al. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115: 419-27
5 Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki MT, Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 737-41
6 Quante K, Ludwig K, Kern M. Marginal and internal fit of metal-ceramic crowns fabricated with a new laser melting technology. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 1311-5
7 Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2006: p. 562-79
8 Williams RJ, Bibb R, Eggbeer D, Collis J. Use of CAD/CAM technology to fabricate a removable partial denture framework. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96: 96-9
9 Wu M, Tinschert J, Augthun M, Wagner I, Schädlich-Stubenrauch J, Sahm PR. et al. Application of laser measuring, numerical simulation and rapid prototyping to titanium dental castings. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 102-8
10 Azari A, Nikzad S. The evolution of rapid prototyping in dentistry: A review. Rapid Prototyp J 2009; 15: 216-25
11 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
12 Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 866-76
13 Tan PL, Gratton DG, Diaz-Arnold AM, Holmes DC. Anin vitro comparison of vertical marginal gaps of CAD/CAM titanium and conventional cast restorations. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 378-83
14 Liu Q, Leu MC, Schmitt SM. Rapid prototyping in dentistry: Technology and application. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2006; 29: 317-35
15 Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. et al. Conventional versus digital impressions for “All-on-four” restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31: 324-30
16 Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. et al. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: Accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 465-72
17 Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A Comparativein vitro study. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0163107
18 Kazemi M, Pornasrollah A, Allahyari S, Jalali H. Retention of castings fabricated by plastic coping and direct wax up for single crown and bridge in different implant systems. J Dent Med 2015; 28: 86-94
19 Williams RJ, Bibb R, Rafik T. A technique for fabricating patterns for removable partial denture frameworks using digitized casts and electronic surveying. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 85-8
20 Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7: 817-25
21 Cicciù M, Bramanti E, Cecchetti F, Scappaticci L, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. et al. FEM and von Mises analyses of different dental implant shapes for masticatory loading distribution. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2014; 7: 1-0
22 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Bramanti E, Lauritano F, Lo Gudice G, Scappaticci L. et al. FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: Evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015: 943839
23 Bramanti E, Cervino G, Lauritano F, Fiorillo L, D'Amico C, Sambataro S. et al. FEM and von Mises analysis on prosthetic crowns structural elements: Evaluation of different applied materials. ScientificWorldJournal 2017; 2017: 1029574
24 Cicciù M, Beretta M, Risitano G, Maiorana C. Cemented-retained vs. screw-retained implant restorations: An investigation on 1939 dental implants. Minerva Stomatol 2008; 57: 167-79
25 Covey DA, Kent DK, St Germain Jr. HA, Koka S. Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 344-8
26 Kent DK, Koka S, Froeschle ML. Retention of cemented implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 1997; 6: 193-6
27 Clayton GH, Driscoll CF, Hondrum SO. The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the ceraOne implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12: 660-5
28 Yeung TC, Lai YL, Hsieh YL, Lee SY. The effect of cement and venting design on the retentive strength and marginal adaptation of CeraOne implant prostheses. Chin Dent J 2005; 24: 95-100
29 Mayata-Tovalino FR, Ccahuana-Vasquez VZ, Rosas-Diaz JC. Removal force of cast copings to abutments with three luting agents. J Dent Implant 2015; 5: 25-30
30 Li TH, Lin DM, Pan YH. Retention and marginal adaptation of luting agents on dental implant-supported prostheses. Taiwan J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 25: 88-99
31 Pan YH, Lin CK. The effect of luting agents on the retention of dental implant-supported crowns. Chang Gung Med J 2005; 28: 403-10
32 Tan KM, Masri R, Driscol CF, Limkangwalmongkol P, Romberg E. Effect of axial wall modification on the retention of cement-retained, implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 107: 80-5
33 Bernal G, Okamura M, Muñoz CA. The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance of dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2003; 12: 111-5
34 Matani JD, Parulekar N, Kheur M, Jambhekar S, Supriya MK. Retention of metal crowns luted to implant abutments of two different diameters using different luting agents. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2012; 2: 96-100
35 Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, Savabi G. Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012; 9: 13-18
36 Swift Jr. EJ, Lloyd AH, Felton DA. The effect of resin desensitizing agents on crown retention. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 195-200
37 Mausner IK, Goldstein GR, Georgescu M. Effect of two dentinal desensitizing agents on retention of complete cast coping using four cements. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 75: 129-34
38 Gorodovsky S, Zidan O. Retentive strength, disintegration, and marginal quality of luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 269-74
39 Darveniza M, Basford KE, Meek J, Stevens L. The effects of surface roughness and surface area on the retention of crowns luted with zinc phosphate cement. Aust Dent J 1987; 32: 446-57
40 Schiessl C, Schaefer L, Winter C, Fuerst J, Rosentritt M, Zeman F. et al. Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 1179-90
41 Ayad MF, Rosenstiel SF, Salama M. Influence of tooth surface roughness and type of cement on retention of complete cast crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77: 116-21
42 Torabi K, Azarian M. Study of the effect of die spacing (Cement Space) on cast crown retention. J Dent 2003; 4: 16-23
43 Harris IR, Wickens JL. A comparison of the fit of spark-eroded titanium copings and cast gold alloy copings. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 348-55
44 Leong D, Chai J, Lautenschlager E, Gilbert J. Marginal fit of machine-milled titanium and cast titanium single crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 440-7
45 Vojdani M, Torabi K, Farjood E, Khaledi A. Comparison the marginal and internal fit of metal copings cast from wax patterns fabricated by CAD/CAM and conventional wax up techniques. J Dent (Shiraz) 2013; 14: 118-29
46 Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 343-8
1 Augstin-Panadero R, Fons-Font A, Roman-Rodriguez JL, Granell-Ruiz M, del Rio-Highsmith J, Sola-Ruiz MF. et al. Zirconia versus metal: A preliminary comparative analysis of ceramic veneer behavior. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25: 294-300