Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(01): 071-076
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_314_17
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Digital versus conventional techniques for pattern fabrication of implant-supported frameworks

Marzieh Alikhasi
1   Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran,
,
Ahmad Rohanian
1   Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran,
,
Safoura Ghodsi
1   Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran,
,
Amin Mohammadpour Kolde
2   Dental Student Research Center, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this experimental study was to compare retention of frameworks cast from wax patterns fabricated by three different methods. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six implant analogs connected to one-piece abutments were divided randomly into three groups according to the wax pattern fabrication method (n = 12). Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milling machine, three-dimensional printer, and conventional technique were used for fabrication of waxing patterns. All laboratory procedures were performed by an expert-reliable technician to eliminate intra-operator bias. The wax patterns were cast, finished, and seated on related abutment analogs. The number of adjustment times was recorded and analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis test. Frameworks were cemented on the corresponding analogs with zinc phosphate cement and tensile resistance test was used to measure retention value. Statistical Analysis Used: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis. Level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: The mean retentive values of 680.36 ± 21.93 N, 440.48 ± 85.98 N, and 407.23 ± 67.48 N were recorded for CAD/CAM, rapid prototyping, and conventional group, respectively. One-way ANOVA test revealed significant differences among the three groups (P < 0.001). The post hoc Tukey test showed significantly higher retention for CAD/CAM group (P < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the two other groups (P = 0.54). CAD/CAM group required significantly more adjustments (P < 0.001). Conclusions: CAD/CAM-fabricated wax patterns showed significantly higher retention for implant-supported cement-retained frameworks; this could be a valuable help when there are limitations in the retention of single-unit implant restorations.

Key words:

Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing - dental implant - retention - wax pattern
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Pettenò D, Schierano G, Bassi F, Bresciano ME, Carossa S. Comparison of marginal fit of 3 different metal-ceramic systems: Anin vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13: 405-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kokubo Y, Kano T, Tsumita M, Sakurai S, Itayama A, Fukushima S. et al. Retention of zirconia copings on zirconia implant abutments cemented with provisional luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 48-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shadid R, Sadaqa N. A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review. J Oral Implantol 2012; 38: 298-307
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lemos CA, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, Santiago Júnior JF, Verri FR, Pellizzer EP. et al. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115: 419-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki MT, Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 737-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Quante K, Ludwig K, Kern M. Marginal and internal fit of metal-ceramic crowns fabricated with a new laser melting technology. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 1311-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2006: p. 562-79
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Williams RJ, Bibb R, Eggbeer D, Collis J. Use of CAD/CAM technology to fabricate a removable partial denture framework. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96: 96-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wu M, Tinschert J, Augthun M, Wagner I, Schädlich-Stubenrauch J, Sahm PR. et al. Application of laser measuring, numerical simulation and rapid prototyping to titanium dental castings. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 102-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Azari A, Nikzad S. The evolution of rapid prototyping in dentistry: A review. Rapid Prototyp J 2009; 15: 216-25
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Strub JR, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: Current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137: 1289-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 866-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tan PL, Gratton DG, Diaz-Arnold AM, Holmes DC. Anin vitro comparison of vertical marginal gaps of CAD/CAM titanium and conventional cast restorations. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 378-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Liu Q, Leu MC, Schmitt SM. Rapid prototyping in dentistry: Technology and application. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2006; 29: 317-35
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. et al. Conventional versus digital impressions for “All-on-four” restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31: 324-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. et al. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: Accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 465-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A Comparativein vitro study. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0163107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kazemi M, Pornasrollah A, Allahyari S, Jalali H. Retention of castings fabricated by plastic coping and direct wax up for single crown and bridge in different implant systems. J Dent Med 2015; 28: 86-94
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Williams RJ, Bibb R, Rafik T. A technique for fabricating patterns for removable partial denture frameworks using digitized casts and electronic surveying. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 85-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7: 817-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cicciù M, Bramanti E, Cecchetti F, Scappaticci L, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. et al. FEM and von Mises analyses of different dental implant shapes for masticatory loading distribution. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2014; 7: 1-0
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Bramanti E, Lauritano F, Lo Gudice G, Scappaticci L. et al. FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: Evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015: 943839
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bramanti E, Cervino G, Lauritano F, Fiorillo L, D'Amico C, Sambataro S. et al. FEM and von Mises analysis on prosthetic crowns structural elements: Evaluation of different applied materials. ScientificWorldJournal 2017; 2017: 1029574
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cicciù M, Beretta M, Risitano G, Maiorana C. Cemented-retained vs. screw-retained implant restorations: An investigation on 1939 dental implants. Minerva Stomatol 2008; 57: 167-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Covey DA, Kent DK, St Germain Jr. HA, Koka S. Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 344-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kent DK, Koka S, Froeschle ML. Retention of cemented implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 1997; 6: 193-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Clayton GH, Driscoll CF, Hondrum SO. The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the ceraOne implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12: 660-5
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Yeung TC, Lai YL, Hsieh YL, Lee SY. The effect of cement and venting design on the retentive strength and marginal adaptation of CeraOne implant prostheses. Chin Dent J 2005; 24: 95-100
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Mayata-Tovalino FR, Ccahuana-Vasquez VZ, Rosas-Diaz JC. Removal force of cast copings to abutments with three luting agents. J Dent Implant 2015; 5: 25-30
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Li TH, Lin DM, Pan YH. Retention and marginal adaptation of luting agents on dental implant-supported prostheses. Taiwan J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 25: 88-99
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Pan YH, Lin CK. The effect of luting agents on the retention of dental implant-supported crowns. Chang Gung Med J 2005; 28: 403-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Tan KM, Masri R, Driscol CF, Limkangwalmongkol P, Romberg E. Effect of axial wall modification on the retention of cement-retained, implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 107: 80-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bernal G, Okamura M, Muñoz CA. The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance of dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2003; 12: 111-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Matani JD, Parulekar N, Kheur M, Jambhekar S, Supriya MK. Retention of metal crowns luted to implant abutments of two different diameters using different luting agents. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2012; 2: 96-100
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, Savabi G. Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012; 9: 13-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Swift Jr. EJ, Lloyd AH, Felton DA. The effect of resin desensitizing agents on crown retention. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 195-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Mausner IK, Goldstein GR, Georgescu M. Effect of two dentinal desensitizing agents on retention of complete cast coping using four cements. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 75: 129-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Gorodovsky S, Zidan O. Retentive strength, disintegration, and marginal quality of luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 269-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Darveniza M, Basford KE, Meek J, Stevens L. The effects of surface roughness and surface area on the retention of crowns luted with zinc phosphate cement. Aust Dent J 1987; 32: 446-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Schiessl C, Schaefer L, Winter C, Fuerst J, Rosentritt M, Zeman F. et al. Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 1179-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Ayad MF, Rosenstiel SF, Salama M. Influence of tooth surface roughness and type of cement on retention of complete cast crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77: 116-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Torabi K, Azarian M. Study of the effect of die spacing (Cement Space) on cast crown retention. J Dent 2003; 4: 16-23
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Harris IR, Wickens JL. A comparison of the fit of spark-eroded titanium copings and cast gold alloy copings. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 348-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Leong D, Chai J, Lautenschlager E, Gilbert J. Marginal fit of machine-milled titanium and cast titanium single crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 440-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Vojdani M, Torabi K, Farjood E, Khaledi A. Comparison the marginal and internal fit of metal copings cast from wax patterns fabricated by CAD/CAM and conventional wax up techniques. J Dent (Shiraz) 2013; 14: 118-29
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 343-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 1 Augstin-Panadero R, Fons-Font A, Roman-Rodriguez JL, Granell-Ruiz M, del Rio-Highsmith J, Sola-Ruiz MF. et al. Zirconia versus metal: A preliminary comparative analysis of ceramic veneer behavior. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25: 294-300
    PubMedGoogle Scholar