Dimensional Changes of 3-Unit Implant-Supported Zirconia Frameworks of Two CAD/CAM Systems from Scanning to Sintering

Abstract

Objectives:Internal fit of implant frameworks is an important factor determining the long-term success of dental implant restorations. This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate dimensional changes of implant-supported zirconia frameworks fabricated by two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems from scanning to sintering.Materials and Methods:A master model of a three-unit fixed partial denture was fabricated with two implant abutments. In each CAD/CAM system (AmannGirrbach and Zirkonzahn), the master model was scanned 12 times, and data were saved as Standard Transformation Language files (scanning groups). Using semi-sintered zirconia, 12 real-size frameworks (milling groups) and 12 enlarged frameworks, were sintered (sintering groups) and made by each system. Dimensions of the master model and frameworks in each phase were measured. Dimensional changes (compared to the master model) were calculated. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance, independent t-test, and paired sample t-test (α=0.05).Results:Comparison of the two systems revealed that although dimensional changes were greater in the milling phase of Zirkonzahn, they were larger in the sintering phase of the AmannGirrbach system. Evaluation of fabrication phases revealed greater dimensional changes in the milling phase compared to the other phases in the Zirkonzahn system (P<0.05). However, in the AmannGirrbach system, the values were not significantly different between milling and sintering phases (P>0.05).Conclusion:Within the limitations of this study, the results showed that fabrication phases, CAD/CAM system type and abutment size had significant effects on dimensional changes.

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

“…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 . The 3D data acquisition was usually performed by optical or tactile scanning, 42,56‐58 computerized tomography (CT), 6,18,22,52,53,59 and coordinate measuring machine (CMM) 22,38,47‐51,54‐56 .…”

“…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 . The 3D data acquisition was usually performed by optical or tactile scanning, 42,56‐58 computerized tomography (CT), 6,18,22,52,53,59 and coordinate measuring machine (CMM) 22,38,47‐51,54‐56 . The advantages, disadvantages and accuracy of different acquisition methods are listed in Table 4.…”