Cargando…

Evaluation and comparison of vertical marginal fit of three different types of multiunit screw-retained framework fabricated for an implant-supported prosthesis – An in vitro study

AIM: The present study aimed to evaluate on a comparative basis the vertical marginal fit between conventionally casted, direct metal laser sintered (DMLS), and milled computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) one-piece metal framework supported by five implants using one-screw te...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singh, Mahima, Yadav, Bhupender Kumar, Phukela, Sumit Singh, Ritwal, Pankaj, Nagpal, Abhishek, Saluja, Pulin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9416961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36511053
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_28_22
_version_ 1784776592769155072
author Singh, Mahima
Yadav, Bhupender Kumar
Phukela, Sumit Singh
Ritwal, Pankaj
Nagpal, Abhishek
Saluja, Pulin
author_facet Singh, Mahima
Yadav, Bhupender Kumar
Phukela, Sumit Singh
Ritwal, Pankaj
Nagpal, Abhishek
Saluja, Pulin
author_sort Singh, Mahima
collection PubMed
description AIM: The present study aimed to evaluate on a comparative basis the vertical marginal fit between conventionally casted, direct metal laser sintered (DMLS), and milled computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) one-piece metal framework supported by five implants using one-screw test and screw resistance test. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This is an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five implants were placed parallel to one other in a Styrofoam master model. A total of 30 implant-supported screw-retained superstructures were manufactured using three techniques, i.e., conventionally casted, milled, and sintered. To evaluate the vertical marginal discrepancy, screw resistance test, and one-screw test were used, and measurements were made using a stereomicroscope. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The data was analysed using two statistical tests, i.e., ANOVA and the post hoc Bonferroni test. RESULTS: On evaluating the frameworks using one-screw test, the mean vertical misfit value at the terminal implant for the control group was 292.58 ± 15.46μm, for conventionally casted framework 398.41 ± 21.13 μm, for DMLS 343.44 ± 24.73 μm, and for CAD-CAM was 304.03 ± 14.23 μm, whereas the average misfit values at four implants on applying screw resistance test were 1268.65 ± 84.24 (control), 1774.88 ± 67.70 (casted), 1508.02 ± 62.19 (DMLS), and 1367.29 ± 81.87 (CAD-CAM). The average misfit values on two implants using screw resistance test were 635.02 ± 57.33 for the control group; for conventionally casted, it was 879.75 ± 35.93; for (DMLS) framework, it was 761.51 ± 32.85; and for milled CAD-CAM framework, it was 687.07 ± 42.17 μm. CONCLUSION: The mean vertical marginal discrepancy, when compared with control, was least in milled CAD-CAM frameworks, followed by sintered DMLS and conventionally casted frameworks. Hence, according to the present study, CAD/CAM technique is recommended to achieve maximum marginal fit in full mouth screw-retained implant-supported FDPs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9416961
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94169612023-07-01 Evaluation and comparison of vertical marginal fit of three different types of multiunit screw-retained framework fabricated for an implant-supported prosthesis – An in vitro study Singh, Mahima Yadav, Bhupender Kumar Phukela, Sumit Singh Ritwal, Pankaj Nagpal, Abhishek Saluja, Pulin J Indian Prosthodont Soc Research AIM: The present study aimed to evaluate on a comparative basis the vertical marginal fit between conventionally casted, direct metal laser sintered (DMLS), and milled computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) one-piece metal framework supported by five implants using one-screw test and screw resistance test. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This is an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five implants were placed parallel to one other in a Styrofoam master model. A total of 30 implant-supported screw-retained superstructures were manufactured using three techniques, i.e., conventionally casted, milled, and sintered. To evaluate the vertical marginal discrepancy, screw resistance test, and one-screw test were used, and measurements were made using a stereomicroscope. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The data was analysed using two statistical tests, i.e., ANOVA and the post hoc Bonferroni test. RESULTS: On evaluating the frameworks using one-screw test, the mean vertical misfit value at the terminal implant for the control group was 292.58 ± 15.46μm, for conventionally casted framework 398.41 ± 21.13 μm, for DMLS 343.44 ± 24.73 μm, and for CAD-CAM was 304.03 ± 14.23 μm, whereas the average misfit values at four implants on applying screw resistance test were 1268.65 ± 84.24 (control), 1774.88 ± 67.70 (casted), 1508.02 ± 62.19 (DMLS), and 1367.29 ± 81.87 (CAD-CAM). The average misfit values on two implants using screw resistance test were 635.02 ± 57.33 for the control group; for conventionally casted, it was 879.75 ± 35.93; for (DMLS) framework, it was 761.51 ± 32.85; and for milled CAD-CAM framework, it was 687.07 ± 42.17 μm. CONCLUSION: The mean vertical marginal discrepancy, when compared with control, was least in milled CAD-CAM frameworks, followed by sintered DMLS and conventionally casted frameworks. Hence, according to the present study, CAD/CAM technique is recommended to achieve maximum marginal fit in full mouth screw-retained implant-supported FDPs. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2022-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9416961/ /pubmed/36511053 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_28_22 Text en Copyright: © 2022 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Research
Singh, Mahima
Yadav, Bhupender Kumar
Phukela, Sumit Singh
Ritwal, Pankaj
Nagpal, Abhishek
Saluja, Pulin
Evaluation and comparison of vertical marginal fit of three different types of multiunit screw-retained framework fabricated for an implant-supported prosthesis – An in vitro study
title Evaluation and comparison of vertical marginal fit of three different types of multiunit screw-retained framework fabricated for an implant-supported prosthesis – An in vitro study
title_full Evaluation and comparison of vertical marginal fit of three different types of multiunit screw-retained framework fabricated for an implant-supported prosthesis – An in vitro study
title_fullStr Evaluation and comparison of vertical marginal fit of three different types of multiunit screw-retained framework fabricated for an implant-supported prosthesis – An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation and comparison of vertical marginal fit of three different types of multiunit screw-retained framework fabricated for an implant-supported prosthesis – An in vitro study
title_short Evaluation and comparison of vertical marginal fit of three different types of multiunit screw-retained framework fabricated for an implant-supported prosthesis – An in vitro study
title_sort evaluation and comparison of vertical marginal fit of three different types of multiunit screw-retained framework fabricated for an implant-supported prosthesis – an in vitro study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9416961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36511053
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_28_22
work_keys_str_mv AT singhmahima evaluationandcomparisonofverticalmarginalfitofthreedifferenttypesofmultiunitscrewretainedframeworkfabricatedforanimplantsupportedprosthesisaninvitrostudy
AT yadavbhupenderkumar evaluationandcomparisonofverticalmarginalfitofthreedifferenttypesofmultiunitscrewretainedframeworkfabricatedforanimplantsupportedprosthesisaninvitrostudy
AT phukelasumitsingh evaluationandcomparisonofverticalmarginalfitofthreedifferenttypesofmultiunitscrewretainedframeworkfabricatedforanimplantsupportedprosthesisaninvitrostudy
AT ritwalpankaj evaluationandcomparisonofverticalmarginalfitofthreedifferenttypesofmultiunitscrewretainedframeworkfabricatedforanimplantsupportedprosthesisaninvitrostudy
AT nagpalabhishek evaluationandcomparisonofverticalmarginalfitofthreedifferenttypesofmultiunitscrewretainedframeworkfabricatedforanimplantsupportedprosthesisaninvitrostudy
AT salujapulin evaluationandcomparisonofverticalmarginalfitofthreedifferenttypesofmultiunitscrewretainedframeworkfabricatedforanimplantsupportedprosthesisaninvitrostudy