Leticia Del Rio Silva, Thaís Barbin, Daniele Valente Velôso, Marcelo Ferraz Mesquita, Guilherme Almeida Borges
{"title":"Marginal gap of three-dimensional printed full-arch frameworks supported by all-on-four and all-on-six implant designs.","authors":"Leticia Del Rio Silva, Thaís Barbin, Daniele Valente Velôso, Marcelo Ferraz Mesquita, Guilherme Almeida Borges","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_40_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal gap of full-arch frameworks (FAFs) supported by all-on-four and all-on-six implant designs, fabricated using different manufacturing technologies.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>This was an in vitro study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifteen titanium FAFs were fabricated using milling and three-dimensional printing techniques: selective laser melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM) (n = 5/group). The marginal gap between the framework and abutment was measured using a microscope with 1 μm accuracy. Measurements were taken three times by a calibrated examiner (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.996; P < 0.001) at the buccal and lingual interface between the abutment and the framework.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>A two-way ANOVA was applied to assess the effects of implant design and manufacturing technology (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When comparing implant designs, the all-on-four group (milling [P = 0.002] and SLM [P = 0.001]) exhibited lower marginal gap values than the all-on-six group. No statistically significant difference was observed between the EBM frameworks in both designs. In the all-on-four group, milling resulted in lower marginal gap values than SLM (P = 0.021) and EBM (P = 0.001), while no statistically significant difference was found between the SLM and EBM groups (P = 0.163). For the all-on-six framework design, the milling (P = 0.008) and EBM (P < .001) groups exhibited lower marginal gap values than the SLM group. No statistically significant difference was detected between the milling and EBM groups (P = 0.160).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Milled frameworks should be the preferred choice for rehabilitations using the all-on-four implant design. For the all-on-six design, both milled and EBM frameworks may be indicated. The marginal gap values observed for all FAFs designs and manufacturing technologies can be considered clinically acceptable.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"25 3","pages":"191-197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_40_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal gap of full-arch frameworks (FAFs) supported by all-on-four and all-on-six implant designs, fabricated using different manufacturing technologies.
Settings and design: This was an in vitro study.
Materials and methods: Fifteen titanium FAFs were fabricated using milling and three-dimensional printing techniques: selective laser melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM) (n = 5/group). The marginal gap between the framework and abutment was measured using a microscope with 1 μm accuracy. Measurements were taken three times by a calibrated examiner (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.996; P < 0.001) at the buccal and lingual interface between the abutment and the framework.
Statistical analysis used: A two-way ANOVA was applied to assess the effects of implant design and manufacturing technology (α = 0.05).
Results: When comparing implant designs, the all-on-four group (milling [P = 0.002] and SLM [P = 0.001]) exhibited lower marginal gap values than the all-on-six group. No statistically significant difference was observed between the EBM frameworks in both designs. In the all-on-four group, milling resulted in lower marginal gap values than SLM (P = 0.021) and EBM (P = 0.001), while no statistically significant difference was found between the SLM and EBM groups (P = 0.163). For the all-on-six framework design, the milling (P = 0.008) and EBM (P < .001) groups exhibited lower marginal gap values than the SLM group. No statistically significant difference was detected between the milling and EBM groups (P = 0.160).
Conclusion: Milled frameworks should be the preferred choice for rehabilitations using the all-on-four implant design. For the all-on-six design, both milled and EBM frameworks may be indicated. The marginal gap values observed for all FAFs designs and manufacturing technologies can be considered clinically acceptable.