Effect of manufacturing techniques on the marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium implant-supported multiunit frameworks

Akçin, Elif Tuba; Güncü, Mustafa Barış; Aktaş, Güliz; Aslan, Yavuz

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.02.012

Cited by 41 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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%

“…The classic analogue techniques, such as SEM and stereomicroscope, have long been used in previous studies for direct examining the marginal and internal gaps after sectioning the framework 19‐21 . They have limitations in measuring 3D discrepancies and angular misfits 72 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…The marginal fit of a fixed prosthesis is one of the most important factors for successful prosthetic treatment [1,2]. An ideal marginal fit maintains a healthy periodontal status and prevents cement dissolution [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, an excellent internal fit increases the retention of the prosthesis [8]. For these reasons, numerous studies have been conducted on the marginal and internal fit of a prosthesis to determine its prognosis [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison Study of Marginal and Internal Fit Assessment Methods for Fixed Dental Prostheses

Lee

Kang

et al. 2019

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have previously evaluated the marginal and internal fit of fixed prostheses; however, few reports have performed an objective comparison of the various methods used for their assessment. The purpose of this study was to compare five marginal and internal fit assessment methods for fixed prostheses. A specially designed sample was used to measure the marginal and internal fit of the prosthesis according to the cross-sectional method (CSM), silicone replica technique (SRT), triple scan method (TSM), micro-computed tomography (MCT), and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The five methods showed significant differences in the four regions that were assessed (p < 0.001). The marginal, axial, angle, and occlusal regions showed low mean values: CSM (23.2 µm), TSM (56.3 µm), MCT (84.3 µm), and MCT (102.6 µm), respectively. The marginal fit for each method was in the range of 23.2–83.4 µm and internal fit (axial, angle, and occlusal) ranged from 44.8–95.9 µm, 84.3–128.6 µm, and 102.6–140.5 µm, respectively. The marginal and internal fit showed significant differences depending on the method. Even if the assessment values of the marginal and internal fit are found to be in the allowable clinical range, the differences in the values according to the method should be considered.

show abstract

“…Literature data reported that the LWT method and CAD-CAM technology have statistically similar results. Moreover, the axial discrepancy values of the SLM technique (70 ± 19 µm) were significantly higher than those of LWT (45 ± 16 µm) [24]. No clear information could be found in literature about the superiority of CAD-CAM technology over the casting technique regarding the marginal adaptation of dental frameworks [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Casting over Metal Method Used in Manufacturing Hybrid Cobalt-Chromium Dental Prosthetic Frameworks Assembles

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr) alloys are the most widely used materials for removable and fixed dental prosthetic frameworks. The fitting accuracy between these components in dental prosthetic frameworks assembles (DPFAs) is largely influenced by the manufacturing method. This study presents a novel manufacturing method that combined two common techniques for obtaining one single framework: casting of Co–Cr inserts on top of parts previously manufactured by selective laser melting (SLM) of Co–Cr powder (CoM). Horizontal (n = 4) and vertical (n = 3) surfaces were microscopically analyzed (n = 770 count sum). The results revealed a high precision of the process and high fitting accuracy between the hybrid frameworks. The average distance measured between the frameworks in joined position was 41.08 ± 7.56 µm. In conclusion, the manufacturing of Co–Cr alloys DPFA using the CoM method reduced the deformation of hybrid frameworks and improved the joining accuracy between them.

show abstract

Effect of manufacturing techniques on the marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium implant-supported multiunit frameworks

Cited by 41 publications

References 31 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

A Comparison Study of Marginal and Internal Fit Assessment Methods for Fixed Dental Prostheses

Casting over Metal Method Used in Manufacturing Hybrid Cobalt-Chromium Dental Prosthetic Frameworks Assembles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About