A comparison of the passive fit of a 3-unit implant-supported fixed partial denture fabricated by lost-wax casting, milling soft metal blocks, or direct metal laser sintering: An in vitro study

Arroyo-Cruz, Gema; Orozco-Varo, Ana; Domínguez-Cardoso, Pablo; Jiménez-Castellanos, Emilio

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.019

Cited by 5 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7,12,25,28,29 Seven of included studies investigated screw-retained implantsupported restorations 4,9,11,13,17,27,33 and nine cement-retained prostheses. 7,12,24,[28][29][30][31][32]42 The majority of the studies evaluated additive manufacturing of CoCr (n = 12), 4,9,12,25,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33]42 three-titanium alloys, 11,13,17 and one-zirconia 7 materials. The details of selected studies have been extracted into Tables 4-6.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies that used strain and photoelastic stress analysis for accuracy evaluation presented controversial conclusions. Arroyo‐Crus et al 27 reported that milled restorations demonstrated better accuracy than sintered ones, while others documented that interaction of manufacturing technique and evaluation time was not significant 11 . Moreover, the study of Pressoto et al 4 presented that AM implant‐supported FDPs showed the lowest stress and strain levels compared to milled or cast ones.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stress analysis was conducted for three‐unit 4,27 and complete‐arch 11 screw‐retained implant‐supported prostheses. Both short‐span FDPs and complete‐arch implant‐supported restorations made by milling from metal blocks were found to be more accurate than AM or cast ones 11,27 . However, Pressoto et al 4 claimed that AM 3‐unit FDPs on implants had better accuracy than milled or cast ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, bone adaptation and decrease in misfit strain were observed when implants were loaded nonpassively inducing mainly mechanical issues 26 . Mechanical issues include screw loosening, fractures of the framework, veneering, or other components 26,27 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…26,27 In the in vitro studies, the accuracy of implant-supported cement-retained prostheses can be evaluated by direct microscopy of sectioned or unsectioned samples, 25,28,29 silicone replica technique, 7,12,30 or using computer software 31,32 to do linear measurements of the digitized objects. The implant-prosthesis discrepancy of screw-retained implantsupported prostheses could be measured with the same direct microscopy 11,33 or computer software programs, 9,13,17 as well as strain gauge 4,11,27 analysis. In direct marginal gap microscopy, an irregular finish line of the connections and a 2D view might possess a challenge to accurately measure the misfit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of Fixed Implant‐Supported Dental Prostheses Additively Manufactured by Metal, Ceramic, or Polymer: A Systematic Review

Rutkūnas

Gedrimienė

Auškalnis³

et al. 2022

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Additive manufacturing (AM) in prosthodontics is used as an alternative to casting or milling. Various techniques and materials are available for the additive manufacturing of the fixed and removable tooth‐supported restorations, but there is a lack of evidence on the accuracy of AM fixed implant‐supported prostheses. Recent studies investigated the accuracy of ceramic AM prostheses. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy of additively manufactured metal, ceramic or polymers, and screw‐ or cement‐retained fixed implant‐supported prostheses. Materials and Methods Two calibrated investigators performed an electronic search of relevant publications in the English language following selected PICOS criteria and using a well‐defined search strategy (latest search date—1st of June, 2021). Based on the exclusion criteria (no control group, less than five samples per group, 3D printing of the implant abutment part, only subjective evaluation of accuracy, etc.) studies were not included in the review. Quantitative data of accuracy evaluation such as marginal gap, strain analysis, and linear measurements was extracted and interpreted. QUADAS‐2 tool was used to assess the risk of methodological bias of all included studies. Results Sixteen in vitro studies were selected for the final analysis. Six of the selected studies evaluated screw‐retained restorations and 10 cement‐retained implant‐supported restorations. Only 4 publications concluded that AM restorations were more accurate than conventionally made (cast or milled) ones. The most common finding was that AM restorations were more accurate than cast and demonstrated less or similar accuracy compared to milled ones (n = 10 studies). Detected marginal discrepancies mean values of the AM prosthesis varied from 23 to more than 200 µm, but most of them were categorized as clinically acceptable. Conclusions AM implant‐supported fixed prostheses demonstrate similar accuracy compared to conventional and computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing techniques in vitro. Detected inaccuracies of AM restorations do not exceed clinically acceptable limits. Clinical studies with longer follow‐up periods are needed to show the reliability of AM prostheses.

show abstract