No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this clinical report is to describe the use of the photogrammetric system and intraoral scanning as a reliable technique to record the 3-dimensional implant positions of a full-arch maxillary implant–supported fixed rehabilitation in which the implants were unfavorably positioned. The stereo camera of the photogrammetric system was used to capture the 3-dimensional panoramic position of the implants. The information on soft tissues was obtained with an intraoral scanner. Then, the 2 digital files (standard tessellation language [STL] files) were subsequently superimposed using a best-fit alignment function to generate the definitive digital model with information on teeth, soft tissues, and implants.

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the microgaps at the implant–abutment interface when zirconia (Zr) and CAD/CAM or cast Co–Cr abutments were used. Methods: Sixty-four conical connection implants and their abutments were divided into four groups (Co–Cr (milled, laser-sintered and castable) and Zirconia (milled)). After chewing simulation (300,000 cycles, under 200 N loads at 2 Hz at a 30° angle) and thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5 to 50 °C, dwelling time 55 s), the implant–abutment microgap was measured 14 times at each of the four anatomical aspects on each specimen by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Kruskal–Wallis and pair-wise comparison were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). Results: The SEM analysis revealed smaller microgaps with Co–Cr milled abutments (0.69–8.39 μm) followed by Zr abutments (0.12–6.57 μm), Co–Cr sintered (7.31–25.7 μm) and cast Co–Cr (1.68–85.97 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between milled and cast Co–Cr, milled and laser-sintered Co–Cr, and between Zr and cast and laser-sintered Co–Cr (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The material and the abutment fabrication technique affected the implant–abutment microgap magnitude. The Zr and the milled Co–Cr presented smaller microgaps. Although the CAD/CAM abutments presented the most favorable values, all tested groups had microgaps within a range of 10 to 150 μm.

Purpose: The aim of this comparative in vitro study was to assess the bond strength and mechanical failure of carbon-fiber-reinforced composites against cobalt–chrome structures with ceramic veneering. Materials and methods: A total of 24 specimens (12 per group) simulating dental prosthetic frameworks were fabricated. The experimental specimens were subjected to a thermocycling aging process and to evaluate bond strength. All specimens were subjected to a three-point bending test to fracture using a universal testing machine. Results: The cobalt–chrome/ceramic group yielded a bond strength value of 21.71 ± 2.16 MPa, while the carbon-fiber-reinforced composite group showed 14.50 ± 3.50 MPa. The failure assessment reported statistical significance between groups. Although carbon-fiber-reinforced composite group showed lower bond strength values, the chipping incidence in this group was as well lower. Conclusions: The chrome–cobalt/ceramic group showed greater bonding strength compared to the carbon-fiber-reinforced composite; most of the fractures within the cobalt–chrome/ceramic group, had no possibility of direct clinical repair.