Evaluation of the accuracy and stress distribution of 3-unit implant supported prostheses obtained by different manufacturing methods

Mello, Caroline Cantieri de; Santiago, Joel Ferreira; Lemos, Caa; Galhano, Graziella A.; Evangelisti, E.; Scotti, Roberto; Verri, Fellippo Ramos; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza

doi:10.1016/j.msec.2019.03.059

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty‐two articles combined at least two techniques to correlate implant‐framework misfit and mechanical/biological/clinical consequences, including strain/stress in the mechanical components and peri‐implant bone (21 articles) 72,82‐101 and bacterial counting (1 article) 102 . Within the 21 in vitro studies, 2D assessment using microscopy or SEM has been associated with PSA (5 studies), 85,88,89,91,92 SGA (7 studies), 82‐84,86,93,100,101 FEA (3 studies), 96,97,99 and reverse torque test (2 studies) 87,90 . Two studies combined 3D assessments (optical scanner) with SGA 94,95 and another 2 studies combined SGA and FEA 72,103 .…”

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

“…Mechanical complications commonly arise in clinical situations, including screw loosening, screw fractures, and abutment fracture [64]. Clinical studies have shown that both abutments and screws are significant components associated with implant failure [65]. In our study, greater stress among the titanium components in the single implant configurations was applied to the screws and abutments under lateral loading conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Single missing molar with wide mesiodistal length restored using a single or double implant-supported crown: A self-controlled case report and 3D finite element analysis

Wong,

Zhang,

Dang

et al. 2024

J Prosthodont Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral implant restoration has been widely used to treat patients with tooth loss because of its good masticatory and aesthetic functions [1,2].Loss of a single molar is one of the most common dentition defects and is often restored using a single implant [3,4]. However, when the mesiodistal length (MDL) is high (>12 mm), a single implant-supported crown faces a markedly increased risk of occlusal overload and excessive stress surrounding the implant due to the increased cantilever of the crown [5]. Moreover, the buccolingual width of the alveolar bone is typically insufficient for wide-diameter implants [6,7]. Therefore, some researchers have proposed singlecrown restoration with two narrow-diameter implants placed in the wide MDL [8][9][10][11]. Compared with single implant-supported crowns,

show abstract

“…Abdel-azim et al [ 17 ] investigated both the impression accuracy and misfit of the frameworks that were built with two workflows in an in vitro study. Mello et al [ 23 ] compared the digital and conventional workflows for the resin casts for fabrication of digital and conventional frameworks, and then compared the framework fit. Benic et al, [ 31 ] clinically compared full digital and conventional workflows.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Digital and Conventional Workflows for the Fabrication of Multi-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: An Empty Review

Mahmoud Hashemi,

Hasanzadeh,

Khraisat

et al. 2024

fid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study aimed to do a comprehensive systematic review on the comparison of digital and conventional workflows regarding prosthetic outcomes, accuracy of implant impressions, framework passivity and fit, and clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations. Materials and Methods: The EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up until April 2020. Results: No in-vivo article was found to compare full digital and conventional workflows regarding the accuracy of implant impressions, passivity and fit of frameworks, and prosthetic outcomes. There was no study to investigate full digital and conventional workflows for clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations. Conclusion: This empty review highlights the need for further research to compare full digital and conventional workflows for implant-supported restorations.

show abstract

Evaluation of the accuracy and stress distribution of 3-unit implant supported prostheses obtained by different manufacturing methods

Cited by 10 publications

References 38 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

Single missing molar with wide mesiodistal length restored using a single or double implant-supported crown: A self-controlled case report and 3D finite element analysis

Comparative Evaluation of Digital and Conventional Workflows for the Fabrication of Multi-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: An Empty Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About