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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |