Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2022
Implant-Abutment Discrepancy Before and After Acrylic Resin Veneering of Complete-Arch Titanium Frameworks Manufactured Using Milling and Electron Beam Melting Technologies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Revilla-León Marta, Pérez-López Javier, Barmak Abdul B, Raigrodski Ariel J, Rubenstein Jeffrey, Galluci German O
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the implant-abutment discrepancy of complete-arch frameworks manufactured using milling and additive electron beam melting (EBM) technologies, before and after acrylic resin veneering application.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A definitive implant cast with six implant replicas was digitized using a laboratory scanner. A software program was used to design an implant-supported framework which was manufactured using milling (M group) and EBM (EBM group) technologies (n = 10). In the M group, titanium milled specimens were fabricated. In the EBM group, titanium EBM specimens were obtained. A coordinate measurement machine (CMM) was used to assess the implant-abutment discrepancy at x-, y-, and z-axed between the specimens and the implant-abutment replicas of the definitive cast. The implant replicas positioned on the lateral incisor positions were not able to be assessed. The 3D gap discrepancy was calculated: 3 D = x 2 + y 2 + z 2 $3D\ = \sqrt {{x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2}}$ . Acrylic resin veneering procedures were finished and the same CMM measurements were completed. Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: The manufacturing method (df = 1, F = 7.00, p = 0.009) and implant position (df = 3, F = 129.82, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the x-axis discrepancy. The veneering procedures (df = 1, F = 21.55, p < 0.001) and implant position (df = 3, F = 95.42, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the y-axis discrepancy. The manufacturing method (df = 1, F = 11.79, p = 0.001) was a significant predictor of the z-axis discrepancy. Lastly, the manufacturing method (df = 1, F = 5.11, p = 0.026), implant position (df = 3, F = 11.36, p < 0.001), and veneering procedures (df = 1, F = 41.56, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the 3D gap discrepancy in which the manufacturing method explains the 2.37% of variation in the 3D gap discrepancy, the implant position explains the 15.82% of variation in the 3D gap discrepancy, and veneering procedures explain the 19.29% of variation in the 3D gap discrepancy results.
CONCLUSIONS: The manufacturing methods, veneering procedures, and implant position influenced the linear implant-abutment discrepancy. The milled technique tested obtained lower linear implant-abutment discrepancy compared with the EBM method evaluated. The acrylic resin veneering procedures increased the implant-abutment discrepancy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A definitive implant cast with six implant replicas was digitized using a laboratory scanner. A software program was used to design an implant-supported framework which was manufactured using milling (M group) and EBM (EBM group) technologies (n = 10). In the M group, titanium milled specimens were fabricated. In the EBM group, titanium EBM specimens were obtained. A coordinate measurement machine (CMM) was used to assess the implant-abutment discrepancy at x-, y-, and z-axed between the specimens and the implant-abutment replicas of the definitive cast. The implant replicas positioned on the lateral incisor positions were not able to be assessed. The 3D gap discrepancy was calculated: 3 D = x 2 + y 2 + z 2 $3D\ = \sqrt {{x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2}}$ . Acrylic resin veneering procedures were finished and the same CMM measurements were completed. Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: The manufacturing method (df = 1, F = 7.00, p = 0.009) and implant position (df = 3, F = 129.82, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the x-axis discrepancy. The veneering procedures (df = 1, F = 21.55, p < 0.001) and implant position (df = 3, F = 95.42, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the y-axis discrepancy. The manufacturing method (df = 1, F = 11.79, p = 0.001) was a significant predictor of the z-axis discrepancy. Lastly, the manufacturing method (df = 1, F = 5.11, p = 0.026), implant position (df = 3, F = 11.36, p < 0.001), and veneering procedures (df = 1, F = 41.56, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the 3D gap discrepancy in which the manufacturing method explains the 2.37% of variation in the 3D gap discrepancy, the implant position explains the 15.82% of variation in the 3D gap discrepancy, and veneering procedures explain the 19.29% of variation in the 3D gap discrepancy results.
CONCLUSIONS: The manufacturing methods, veneering procedures, and implant position influenced the linear implant-abutment discrepancy. The milled technique tested obtained lower linear implant-abutment discrepancy compared with the EBM method evaluated. The acrylic resin veneering procedures increased the implant-abutment discrepancy.