Fit of 3Y-TZP complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses before and after porcelain veneering

Svanborg, Per; Saarva, Veronika Norström; Stenport, Victoria Franke; Eliasson, Alf

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.021

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 18 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 . 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 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following the reconstruction of the virtual model, the 3D discrepancy was often computed by an inspection software with various data processing algorithms (Table 5). In most of the studies, the framework was virtually mounted onto the abutments with the “best fit” position of the 3D models, using the least square method (Lsq), 6,22,42,45,48,49,51‐53,56 zero method, 54 or orthogonal 3‐2‐1 method 55 . The one‐screw test usually used at chairside can also be mimicked on the computer screen through aligning the distal virtual implant and abutment, namely “lofting.” 58 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, some studies have used the “definitive fit test” with both screws over the terminal implants tightened instead before the misfit is assessed 22,25,32,34,44 . A study showed that the mean vertical gap of complete‐arch zirconia frameworks would be reduced from 107 μm to 5 μm if the one‐screw test was changed to the definitive‐fit test for misfit assessment 45 . Other studies also found that vertical gaps up to 500 μm could be closed if all retaining screws were tightened 6 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

show abstract

“…34 Positive results have been found after ceramic application for both materials, leading to acceptance of the second hypothesis, since no differences in biomechanical behavior were found after ceramic application for both materials. In a previous study, 35 milled Zr frameworks supported by six implants were porcelain-veneered through three firing cycles, and no influence on the fit was found. The findings of this study added that ceramic application did not alter the values of marginal fit, screw-loosening torque and strain from the initial phase, even when five firing cycles were conducted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Biomechanical behavior of CAD/CAM cobalt-chromium and zirconia full-arch fixed prostheses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE.To verify the influence of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) implantsupported prostheses manufactured with cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) and zirconia (Zr), and whether ceramic application, spark erosion, and simulation of masticatory cycles modify biomechanical parameters (marginal fit, screw-loosening torque, and strain) on the implant-supported system. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ten full-arch fixed frameworks were manufactured by a CAD/CAM milling system with Co-Cr and Zr (n=5/group). The marginal fit between the abutment and frameworks was measured as stated by single-screw test. Screw-loosening torque evaluated screw stability, and strain analysis was explored on the implant-supported system. All analyses were performed at 3 distinct times: after framework manufacturing; after ceramic application in both materials' frameworks; and after the spark erosion in Co-Cr frameworks. Afterward, stability analysis was re-evaluated after 10 6 mechanical cycles (2 Hz/150-N) for both materials. Statistical analyses were performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α=.05). RESULTS. No difference between the two materials was found for marginal fit, screwloosening torque, and strain after framework manufacturing (P>.05). Ceramic application did not affect the variables (P>.05). Spark erosion optimized marginal fit and strain medians for Co-Cr frameworks (P<.05). Screwloosening torque was significantly reduced by masticatory simulation (P<.05) regardless of the framework materials. CONCLUSION. Co-Cr and Zr frameworks presented similar biomechanical behavior. Ceramic application had no effect on the biomechanical behavior of either material. Spark erosion was an effective technique to improve Co-Cr biomechanical behavior on the implant-supported system. Screw-loosening torque was reduced for both materials after masticatory simulation.

show abstract

“…The FDPs were produced on abutment level. The frameworks were used in earlier publications regarding fit (Svanborg et al, 2015(Svanborg et al, , 2019, explaining the difference in implant positioning.…”

Section: Design and Specimensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of porcelain veneer fracture in implant‐supported fixed full‐arch prostheses with a framework of either titanium, cobalt–chromium, or zirconia: An in vitro study

Vahnström

Johansson

Svanborg

et al. 2022

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare porcelain veneer strength on screw‐retained implant‐supported fixed full‐arch prostheses with a framework of either milled titanium (Ti), cobalt–chromium (CoCr), and yttria‐stabilized zirconia (Y‐TZP) in an in vitro loading model. Materials and Methods Fifteen screw‐retained maxillary implant‐supported full‐arch prostheses (FDP), five each of Ti, CoCr, and Y‐TZP frameworks with porcelain veneers were included. All FDPs were subjected to thermocycling before loading until fracture of the veneer. The load was applied at the distal fossa of the occlusal area of the pontic replacing 24. Fracture loads were analyzed, and the fracture quality was assessed. Statistical analysis on the fracture load was performed using Kruskal–Wallis test. The statistical significance was set at p < .05. Results There was no statistical significance found between the groups regarding fracture load. The highest and lowest load was seen within the CoCr FDP, varying between 340 and 1484 N. Different types of fracture appearances were seen. The Y‐TZP FDPs had a higher number of fractures locally in the loaded area while CoCr and Ti more often showed cracks in the anterior region, at a distance from the loaded area. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the conclusion was that framework material may affect the fracture behavior of maxillary full‐arch bridges; however, there were no differences in veneer fracture strength when frameworks of Ti, CoCr, or Y‐TZP were compared.

show abstract

Fit of 3Y-TZP complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses before and after porcelain veneering

Cited by 12 publications

References 18 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

Biomechanical behavior of CAD/CAM cobalt-chromium and zirconia full-arch fixed prostheses

Comparison of porcelain veneer fracture in implant‐supported fixed full‐arch prostheses with a framework of either titanium, cobalt–chromium, or zirconia: An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About