Abutment misfit in implant-supported prostheses manufactured by casting technique: An integrative review

Abstract

The aim of this study was to perform an integrative review of the literature on the clinically usual prosthesis-abutment misfit over implant-supported structures manufactured by conventional casting technique. The present integrative review used the PRISMA methodology. A bibliographical search was conducted on the following electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Scopus (Elsevier), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters Scientific), Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (BIREME), and Virtual Health Library (BVS). A total of 11 relevant studies were selected for qualitative analysis. The prosthetic-abutment vertical misfit considered clinically usual ranged from 50 to 160 μm. The vertical misfit depends on several steps during technical manufacturing techniques, which includes the materials and technical procedures. Lower values in misfit are recorded when precious metal or titanium alloys are utilized. Although a vertical misfit mean value of 100 μm has been considered clinically usual, most of the previous studies included in this revision showed lower mean values.

Clinical factors influencing implant positioning by guided surgery using a nonmetal sleeve template in the partially edentulous ridge: Multiple regression analysis of a prospective cohort

“…The mean deviations found in this study (0.6 mm vertically, 3.59° in angulation, 1.16 mm at the platform, and 1.50 mm at the apex) were similar to previous clinical data obtained in meta‐analyses (Bover‐Ramos et al, 2018; Schneider et al, 2009; Zhou et al, 2018). These values are significantly larger than the clinically acceptable range of limits for prosthetic fittings (50–150 µm) (Castillo‐de‐Oyague et al., 2012; Castillo‐Oyague et al., 2013; Pereira et al, 2017); therefore, greater accuracy would be required to obtain a passive fit of the prefabricated prosthesis on a predictable basis. However, in the clinical setting, an error of less than 2 mm in implant positioning is within the respected margin of safety for anatomic considerations (A. Tahmaseb et al., 2018).…”

Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement by a Novel In-House Model-Free and Zero-Setup Fully Guided Surgical Template Made of a Light-Cured Composite Resin (VARO Guide®): A Comparative In Vitro Study

“…This amount of error is considered appropriate to avoid the invasion of critical anatomical structures (i.e., mandibular canal, mental foramen or maxillary sinus floor) since the safety margin for anatomic consideration was reported as an error of less than 2 mm [ 17 ]. Meanwhile, it is insufficient in terms of passively delivering the prefabricated prosthesis for immediate provisionalization or loading as the clinically acceptable range of error for prosthetic fitting is known to be from 0.05 mm to 0.15 mm [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. This means that both VG and NG may provide a benefit to clinicians to conduct a safe surgery, but they need more improvement to let them deliver the prosthesis designed and fabricated at the presurgical planning stage.…”

Effect of Implant Platform Connection and Abutment Material on Removal Torque and Implant Hexagon Plastic Deformation

“…1B 1D 1H ) may lead to loss of retention of the screw and thus create a misfit between the abutment and implant platform, leading to clinical failure. 25 26…”