Implant‐Abutment Discrepancy Before and After Acrylic Resin Veneering of Complete‐Arch Titanium Frameworks Manufactured Using Milling and Electron Beam Melting Technologies. (21st March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Revilla‐León, Marta; Pérez‐López, Javier; Barmak, Abdul B.; Raigrodski, Ariel J.; Rubenstein, Jeffrey; Galluci, German O.
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontics. Volume 31(2022)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 88
• Page End: 96
• Publication Date: 2022-03-21
• Subjects: 3D metal printing -- Additive manufacturing -- CAD/CAM -- Electron beam melting -- Powder bed fusion technologies; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13422
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-941X

Abstract

Abstract: 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.