A Comparison of Two Soldering Techniques on the Misfit of Bar‐Retained Implant‐Supported Overdentures

Álvarez, Ana; Lafita, Pedro; Llanos, Hector de; Gago, Ángel; Brizuela-Velasco, Aritza; Ellacuria, Joseba J.

doi:10.1111/jopr.12083

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the included publications, more than half (27 out of 47 articles) described the implant‐framework misfit with 2D measurements, such as vertical (31 articles) 4,17‐45 and horizontal gaps (4 articles) at the margin, 18,43,44 as well as internal gaps between the mating surfaces (4 articles), 19‐21,46 by stereomicroscope and SEM in different experimental conditions (one‐screw test and definitive‐fit test). Besides, 18 articles demonstrated the implant framework misfit with 3D measurements, 6,18,22,38,42,45,47‐58 including the volumetric discrepancy 58 and spatial deviation in X ‐, Y ‐, and Z ‐axis 6,45,47,48,50,51,54‐56 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Pan

Tsoi

Lam

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The fit of implant‐supported prostheses is of prime importance for the long‐term success of implant therapy. Purpose This systematic review aimed to evaluate recent evidence on current techniques for assessing implant‐framework misfit, its associated strain/stress, and whether these misfits are related to mechanical, biological, and clinical consequences. Materials and methods An electronic search for publications from January 2010 to October 2020 was performed using the Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases with combined keywords on implant‐framework misfit assessments and related clinical complications. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. After full‐text analyses, data extraction was implemented on current techniques of misfit assessment and the relationship between the misfit and the induced strain/stress. Results A total of 3 in vivo and 92 in vitro studies were selected, including 47 studies on quantifying the degree of implant‐framework misfit with dimensional techniques, 24 studies measuring misfit‐induced strain/stress with modeling techniques, and 24 studies using both methods. The technical details, advantages, and limitations of each technique were illustrated. The correlation between the implant‐framework misfit and the induced strain/stress has been revealed in vitro, while that with the biological complications and implant/prostheses failure was weak in clinical studies. Conclusions Dimensional and modeling techniques are available to measure the implant‐framework misfit. The passivity of implant‐supported fixed prostheses appeared related to the induced strain/stress, but not the clinical complications. Further studies combining three‐dimensional (3D) assessments using dimensional and modeling techniques was needed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Pan

Tsoi

Lam

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These data agree with other studies. 3,13,28,38 The misfit improvement in the majority of the frameworks after sectioning and welding may be related to the fact that this technique enables a reduction of distortions generated by the one-piece casting technique, which is caused by clinical and laboratorial steps, such as waxing, coating, and impression. 24,39,40 Most studies that observed favorable differences regarding the welding technique were conducted using the laser welding technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After a detailed reading of the titles and abstracts and application of the eligibility and exclusion criteria, a total of 27 articles were selected for reading. After reading the articles, 15 articles 1,4,13,10,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37 were excluded due to the reasons listed in Table 1. Thus, 11 articles were included to analyze the results 2,[5][6][7]11,12,17,18,23,24,25 , and 7 studies were selected for a quantitative analysis.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review and meta-analysis of welding procedures in one-piece cast implant-supported frameworks

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of welding techniques on implant-supported prostheses and determine whether they contribute to a better adaptation compared with a one-piece cast. A search was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and articles published until November 2017 were obtained from these databases. This review followed the PRISMA criteria and is registered on the PROSPERO platform (CRD42017081865). The PICO question was "Do welding procedures in one-piece cast implant-supported frameworks influence implant/abutment-framework marginal misfits?" Eleven studies were selected for a qualitative analysis, and seven studies were selected for a quantitative analysis. A total of 189 specimens were fabricated using different materials (cp-Ti, Ni-Cr, Cr-Co, and noble alloys), and welding techniques such as laser welding, conventional welding, tungsten inert gas, and brazing were applied. A vertical marginal misfit was measured using an optical microscope, a stereomicroscope, and/or a scanning electron microscopy. The qualitative analysis in the studies demonstrated a positive effect of the welding techniques on the adaptation of the infrastructures. The meta-analysis confirmed the results (p < 0.00001; MD: -36.14; 95%CI: -48.69 to -23.59). Within the limitations of this study and regarding the heterogeneity of the samples, we conclude that the soldering point technique is effective for obtaining relatively low values of marginal misfit, with laser welding as the most effective technique. However, additional studies were recommended due to the heterogeneity of different variables (alloys, connection, and misfit evaluation) in the included studies.

show abstract

“…The implant-supported bar overdenture is an effective prosthetic treatment for edentulous jaws, particularly when the implants are misaligned [ 1 , 2 ]. Accuracy of a bar framework is essential for longevity of the treatment [ 2 , 3 ]. Framework deformation during the fabrication procedure leads to inaccuracies and misfit of the frameworks [ 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, when the framework is of a large size, the risk of framework misfit is considerably great due to unpredictable contraction of the alloy [ 6 ]. To avoid compromising the fit accuracy of the framework, the framework can be segmented and reconnected [ 2 , 10 ]. However, the soldering adjustment decreases the homogeneity of the material and causes new errors in adaptation [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of the Fit Accuracy of Full-Arch Bar Frameworks Fabricated with Different Presintered Cobalt-Chromium Alloys

Mai

Kwon

Hong

et al. 2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study was to measure the geometric discrepancies that occur during the sintering contraction of presintered Co-Cr alloys in a full-arch bar framework and to compare the variations between alloys from different manufacturers. Materials and Methods Eighteen implant-supported full-arch bar frameworks were fabricated through a soft-machining process using presintered Co-Cr alloy blocks: Ceramill Sintron (CS), Soft Metal (SM), and Sintermetall (SML) (n=6 for each group). The sintered frameworks were digitized using a structured light scanner, and the scan images were superimposed on the reference design. The geometric discrepancies of the sintered frameworks were three-dimensionally analyzed for horizontal, angular, and internal discrepancies. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compare the discrepancies among the groups (α=.05). Results Significant differences were found in the geometric discrepancy measurements among the groups. The CS group showed larger horizontal and angular discrepancies, followed by the SM and SML groups (P<.001). The root mean square (RMS) values for internal discrepancy were not statistically different among the groups (P=.778). Conclusion The geometric discrepancies of full-arch bar frameworks fabricated using the soft-machining process were affected by accuracies in sintering contraction of presintered alloys.

show abstract

A Comparison of Two Soldering Techniques on the Misfit of Bar‐Retained Implant‐Supported Overdentures

Abstract: According to our data, the soldering of bars using the torch or furnace oven soldering techniques does not improve the misfit of one-piece cast bars on two implants. The lower misfit was obtained using the porcelain furnace soldering technique.

Cited by 3 publications

References 41 publications

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of welding procedures in one-piece cast implant-supported frameworks

Comparative Study of the Fit Accuracy of Full-Arch Bar Frameworks Fabricated with Different Presintered Cobalt-Chromium Alloys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About