Fracture resistance of hybrid ceramic abutments with different restoration lengths: A pilot study.

AIM: In this pilot study, the fracture resistance of hybrid abutments with different restoration lengths was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen monolithic zirconia restorations of an upper right incisor were designed to fit a titanium base abutment. Eight central incisors had a crown length of 8 mm (T1) and the other half a length of 12 mm (T2). All crowns were cemented on the titanium base using a resin cement. After cementation, the samples were placed in a thermocycler for 5000 cycles. Fracture strength was measured using a universal test machine. Deformations and fractures of the samples were investigated. RESULTS: The mean fracture resistance of T1 was 515 N (SD 96 N, 339-650) and 305 N (SD 57 N, 234-408) for T2 (p < 0.001). Both groups showed deformation of the titanium base, with no significant difference between both groups (p = 0.200). A difference in fracture type (p = 0.013) was observed, with significantly more screw fractures occurring in group T1 (p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, hybrid restorations with standard titanium base abutments can withstand forces that have been associated with chewing, irrespective of the crown length. However, the shorter crowns demonstrated more fatal fractures.

Proof of Concept of a New 3D-Guided System for a Single Implant Overdenture in the Mandible: An In Vitro Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the precision and efficiency of a novel guide system for single implant placement in the mandibular symphyses and to evaluate whether the outcome is affected by the level of operator experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 90 implants were placed in three different mandibular cast types (Cawood and Howell class III, IV, and V). For each model, a complete denture was 3D printed. A polyether ether ketone rail with a guide sleeve was embedded in the middle of the denture. To determine the ideal implant position, the sleeve could be moved in a buccolingual direction. Adjustment of implant angulation was possible, and an angle correction of 0, 12, or 24 degrees was available. A total of 30 clinicians were divided into three groups: group 1 (experienced, n = 10), group 2 (beginner, n = 10), and group 3 (inexperienced, n = 10). Each clinician was asked to plan and perform a guided flapless implant placement in the mandibular symphysis. Two preoperative CBCT scans were taken; the first was to verify the planning, and the second was to adjust the planning if needed. Finally, a postoperative CBCT scan was taken to compare the planning to the final implant position. RESULTS: Based on the first CBCT, the clinicians adjusted their planning by an average of 1.66 ± 1.65 mm coronally, 2.41 ± 2.44 mm apically, and by a mean angular correction of 6.08 ± 0.77 degrees. After implant placement, the mean deviation from the planned implant position was 0.87 ± 0.58 mm at the coronal aspect and 0.98 ± 0.64 mm at the apical aspect. The mean angular deviation was 6.05 ± 0.71 degrees. Overall, there were no significant differences in coronal and apical deviation (P > .05) based on the level of experience. In terms of angulation, a significant difference was found in both planning (P = .049) and placement (P = .038) between beginners and experienced clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Guided implant placement of a single implant in the mandibular symphysis using a removable denture with guide sleeve had an acceptable level of accuracy. Clinicians with limited experience spent more time on the procedure, resulting in less angular deviation during implant planning and placement compared to experienced clinicians.

Novel complete-arch pillar system (CAPS) to register implant position and maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit.

OBJECTIVES: This article presents a novel complete-arch pillar system (CAPS) to register implant position and maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit for implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The novel system presents a 3-unit toolset comprising intraoral scan bodies (ISBs), lateral pillar attachments (LPAs) and occlusal pillar attachments (OPAs). A 2-stage single visit workflow by an intraoral scanner (Trios 5) was introduced. The first stage "Screw-Scan-Done" was used to describe complete-arch intraoral implant scanning using LPAs. The second stage "Screw-Occlude-Done" involved virtual occlusal recording using OPAs. Two patients with one single edentulous arch were selected for this study. In the first patient, 6 bone level implants (Bone Level Tapered, Straumann) were placed in the edentulous maxilla at positions 12, 14, 16, 22, 24 and 26. In the second patient, 4 bone level implants (NobelActive CC, Nobel Biocare) were placed in the edentulous mandible at positions 32, 35, 42 and 45. A CAD-CAM procedure was initiated with the acquired IOS data to fabricate an interim IFCDP at the same day. Periapical radiographs were obtained of the implant-prosthetic connection of the definitive IFCDPs to verify the passive fit. Metrology software (Geomagic Qualify, 3D Systems - Matlab, Mathworks) was used to assess the implant analogs position in the 3D-printed casts used for fabricating the definitive IFCDPs. A quantitative occlusal relationship analysis was performed with IOS. RESULTS: Radiographic examination revealed no gaps at implant-prosthetic connection of the definitive IFCDPs. The 3D-printed casts showed an overall average distance deviation within the clinically acceptable range of errors of 150 µm. Quantitative occlusal relationship analysis with IOS showed well-distributed contacts. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) A 3-unit toolset with ISBs, LPAs and OPAs allows to register the implant position and maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit; (2) the 2-stage clinical workflow with the CAPS system facilitates the IOS data acquisition for fabrication of an interim IFCDP at the same day; (3) a passive fit was demonstrated for the interim and the definitive IFCDPs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The CAPS system can help clinicians to register the implant position and the maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit for the fabrication of an IFCDP.

Fit and Strength of a Three-Unit Temporary Prosthesis Made by Different Manufacturing Techniques: An In Vitro Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the fit and fracture load of temporary fixed partial prostheses fabricated by means of a conventional direct technique, milling, or 3D printing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary right first premolar and molar were prepared on a Frasaco cast, which was then duplicated 40 times. In total, 10 provisional three-unit fixed prostheses (Protemp 4, 3M) were made using the conventional technique with a putty mold. The 30 remaining casts were scanned to design a provisional restoration using CAD software. A total of 10 designs were milled (CEREC MC X5/shaded PMMA Disk, Dentsply Sirona), while the other 20 were 3D printed with one of the two 3D printers (Asiga UV MAX or Nextdent 5100, C&B, Nextdent). Internal and marginal fit were examined using the replica technique. Next, the restorations were cemented on their respective casts and loaded until fracture using a universal testing machine. The location and propagation of the fracture were also evaluated. RESULTS: 3D printing demonstrated the best internal fit. Nextdent (median internal fit: 132 µm) was significantly better compared to the milled (median internal fit: 185 µm; P = .006) and conventional restorations (median internal fit: 215 µm; P < .001), while the fit of Asiga (median internal fit: 152 µm) was only significantly better than the conventional restorations (P < .012). The lowest marginal discrepancy was found for the milled restorations (median marginal fit: 96 µm), but this was only significant when compared to the conventional group (median internal fit: 163 µm; P < .001). The conventional restorations demonstrated the lowest fracture load (median fracture load: 536 N), which was only significant when compared to Asiga (median fracture load: 892 N; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Within the present in vitro study's limitations, CAD/CAM demonstrated superior fit and strength compared to the conventional technique.

Accuracy of a chairside reverse scanbody workflow for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis using four intraoral scanners versus a desktop scanner.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a chairside reverse scanbody workflow for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis using four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and a desktop scanner. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A complete arch implant-supported interim prosthesis was designed and milled in polymethylmethacrylate. Six reverse scanbodies (ScAnalog) were connected to the implant-prosthetic connections and twenty scans were made extraorally using four IOS devices (TRIOS 3, TRIOS 5, Primescan v.5.2, Medit i700W) and one desktop scanner (E4 RED). A coordinate machine (ATOS Q GOM) was used to assess the milling distortion. The scanbody positions were compared to the reference CAD design using metrology software. Linear and angular measurements per implant-prosthetic connection were considered for trueness and precision. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test. RESULTS: Trueness values were 118.14 ± 25.49 µm for TRIOS 3, 84.62 µm ±19.10 for TRIOS 5, 106.39 ± 27.58 µm for Primescan v.5.2, 120.25 ± 27.44 µm for Medit i700W and 65.36 ± 4.66 µm for E4 RED. Significant differences in mean trueness values were found among IOS and E4 RED. Precision values were 108 ± 55 µm for TRIOS 3, 86 ± 55 µm for TRIOS 5, 104 ± 55 µm for Primescan v.5.2, 90 ± 54 µm for Medit i700W and 18 ± 11 µm for E4 RED. Significant differences in precision were found between IOS and E4 RED. CONCLUSIONS: A chairside reverse scanbody workflow with IOS remains less accurate compared to similar workflow with a desktop scanner. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A chairside reverse scanbody workflow is a valuable alternative but the IOS device should be selected with caution because in the present study, only TRIOS5 was capable to achieve an accuracy below the clinical acceptable thresholds. The use of a desktop scanner remains the best choice for this clinical workflow. Additionally, the milling distortion of the interim prosthesis plays a major role in this reverse scanbody workflow and should be kept as low as possible.

Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery Using an Intraoral Scanner and Desktop 3D-Printed Tooth-Supported Guides.

PURPOSE: The increasing popularity of desktop 3D printers makes guided surgery more accessible. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of single-tooth guided implant surgery by means of a 3D-printed tooth-supported guide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen implants were virtually planned to replace a missing first mandibular molar, using planning software for guided implant surgery (Exoplan, Exocad). A tooth-supported guide was designed and manufactured using a desktop 3D printer (Asiga MAX UV). The implants were placed fully guided in resin casts, and a digital impression was taken to register their position. This scan was compared with the virtual implant position in the planning software, and the internal fit of the guides was evaluated using metrology software. One planning was executed six times for measuring precision. RESULTS: For trueness, the mean angular deviation was 2.63 degrees (SD: 1.69 degrees; range: 0.38 to 5.99 degrees), the mean coronal deviation was 0.52 mm (SD: 0.25; range: 0.09 mm to 1.07 mm), and the mean apical deviation was 0.90 mm (SD: 0.47; range: 0.14 to 1.74 mm). The absolute apical mean deviation in the buccolingual direction (x-axis) was 0.70 mm (SD: 0.42, 0.12 to 1.65 mm; P < .001); in the mesiodistal direction (y-axis), it was 0.34 mm (SD: 0.26; range: 0.01 to 0.80 mm; P = .650); and in the vertical direction (z-axis), it was 0.32 mm (SD: 0.27; range: 0.02 to 1.00 mm; P = .010). The mean internal fit of the guides was 79.5 µm (SD: 19.6 µm; range: 51 to 118 µm). CONCLUSION: Desktop 3D-printed tooth-supported guides demonstrate an acceptable fit and acceptable level of accuracy for single implant placement.

Reliability and Time Efficiency of Digital vs. Analog Bite Registration Technique for the Manufacture of Full-Arch Fixed Implant Prostheses.

OBJECTIVE: Information about full-digital protocols for bite registration with intraoral scanners on multiple implants in the edentulous jaw is scarce. The purpose of this comparative in vivo study was to investigate the reliability and time efficiency of a novel full-digital bite registration technique for the manufacture of full-arch maxillary fixed implant prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In ten patients, a full-arch maxillary fixed implant prosthesis was manufactured on multi-unit abutment level through an analog prosthetic workflow. The bite registration was performed with use of a screw-retained polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) verification jig with detachable wax rim. To articulate the definitive edentulous maxillary implant cast in centric relation at the appropriate occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) to the mandibular antagonist cast, a type II articulator (Artex, Amann Girrbach) was used. Three to six months later, a full-digital bite registration was performed with use of dual-function scan bodies and bilateral connected bite pillars. The bite pillars screwed into the scan bodies were used to adjust and articulate the edentulous maxillary implant arch to the mandibular antagonist arch at the defined OVD. Treatment time for analog and digital bite registration technique was measured in each patient. The reliability of the digital bite registration technique was evaluated by 3D comparison of two sets of stereo lithographic (STL) files obtained from each patient. The three-dimensional deviation was defined along the X-, Y- and Z-axes (Geomagic Control X, 3D Systems Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA). RESULTS: The treatment time for digital bite registration using dual-function scan bodies and bite pillars was significantly shorter than analog bite registration with verification jig and wax rim (60.30%, SD 5.72%). Minor differences between the two techniques were observed with a linear deviation range of 1115 µm (SD 668 µm) overall, 46.2 µm (SD 731.3 µm) along the X-axis, -200.3 µm (SD 744.3 µm) along the Y-axis and 67.1 µm (SD 752.2 µm) along the Z-axis. Bilateral balanced contacts were registered in all patients during full-digital bite registration. CONCLUSIONS: The novel digital bite registration technique with dual-function scan bodies and bite pillars allows for a full-digital workflow for full-arch implant supported restorations. The digital bite workflow was 60% faster, and the overall deviation was around 1 mm, which can be considered clinically acceptable.

In Vitro Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions when compared to conventional impressions, when performed on the abutment or implant level. METHODS: One resin cast with six implants and another cast with six abutments were scanned with Primescan v5.1 (PS51), Primescan v5.2 (PS52), Trios 3 (T3), and Trios 4 (T4). Additionally, conventional impressions (A) were made, poured in gypsum, and digitized using a lab scanner (IScan D104i). A coordinate machine (Atos, GOM, Braunschweig, Germany) was used to generate the reference scan of both casts. For all scans, the position of the implants was calculated and matched with the reference scan. Angular and coronal measurements per implant were considered for trueness and precision. RESULTS: For the implant-level model, PS52 performed significantly better in terms of trueness and precision compared to all other impressions, except for the angular trueness of A (p = 0.072) and the coronal trueness of PS51 (p = 1.000). For the abutment-level model, PS52 also performed significantly better than all other impressions, except for the coronal trueness and precision of A (p = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions for full-arch implant supported prostheses can be as accurate as conventional impressions, depending on the intra-oral scanner and software. Overall, abutment level impressions were more accurate compared to implant level impressions.

Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery in the Edentulous Jaw Using Desktop 3D-Printed Mucosal Supported Guides.

PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the accuracy of implant position using mucosal supported surgical guides, produced by a desktop 3D printer. METHODS: Ninety implants (Bone Level Roxolid, 4.1 mm × 10 mm, Straumann, Villerat, Switzerland) were placed in fifteen mandibular casts (Bonemodels, Castellón de la Plana, Spain). A mucosa-supported guide was designed and printed for each of the fifteen casts. After placement of the implants, the location was assessed by scanning the cast and scan bodies with an intra-oral scanner (Primescan®, Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA). Two comparisons were performed: one with the mucosa as a reference, and one where only the implants were aligned. Angular, coronal and apical deviations were measured. RESULTS: The mean implant angular deviation for tissue and implant alignment were 3.25° (SD 1.69°) and 2.39° (SD 1.42°) respectively, the coronal deviation 0.82 mm (SD 0.43 mm) and 0.45 mm (SD 0.31 mm) and the apical deviation 0.99 mm (SD 0.45 mm) and 0.71 mm (SD 0.43 mm). All three variables were significantly different between the tissue and implant alignment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, we conclude that guided implant surgery using desktop 3D printed mucosa-supported guides has a clinically acceptable level of accuracy. The resilience of the mucosa has a negative effect on the guide stability and increases the deviation in implant position.