Author:
Nassar Hossam I.,Fateen Ayman
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
The purpose of the invitro research was to compare the fit of Cobalt Chromium customized bar fabricated with different manufacturing processes cast metal bar, milled bar and 3D printed bar using scanning electron microscope.
Materials and methods
Clear epoxy resin molds were prepared. In each mold two parallel implants with a 14 mm distance from each other were embedded. Thirty Co-Cr custom bars were constructed and were divided equally into three groups: Group (I) (Co-Cr conv), group (II) milled bar (Co-Cr milled), and group (III) printed bar (Co-Cr print). The marginal fit at implant-abutment interface was scanned using scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Results
There was a significant difference between the three studied groups regarding marginal misfit the between implant and fabricated bars with p-value < 0.001. The highest value of micro-gap distance was found in Co-Cr conventional group (7.95 ± 2.21 μm) followed by Co-Cr 3D printed group (4.98 ± 1.73) and the lower value were found in Co-Cr milled (3.22 ± 0.75).
Conclusion
The marginal fit of milled, 3D printed and conventional cast for Co-Cr alloy were within the clinically acceptable range of misfit. CAD/CAM milled Co-Cr bar revealed a superior internal fit at the implant-abutment interface. This was followed by selective laser melting (SLM) 3D printed bar and the least fit was shown for customized bar with the conventional lost wax technique.
Funder
Future University in Egypt
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference50 articles.
1. Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant‐supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(2):119–30.
2. Sailer I, Philipp A, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Hämmerle CH, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the performance of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:4–31.
3. Alqutaibi AY, Aboalrejal AN. Microgap and micromotion at the implant abutment interface cause marginal bone loss around dental implant but more evidence is needed. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018;18(2):171–2.
4. Liu Y, Wang J. Influences of microgap and micromotion of implant–abutment interface on marginal bone loss around implant neck. Arch Oral Biol. 2017;83:153–60.
5. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(Suppl 1):121–38.