Marginal gap of three-dimensional printed full-arch frameworks supported by all-on-four and all-on-six implant designs.

IF 1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-16 DOI:10.4103/jips.jips_40_25
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.

全对四和全对六种植体设计支持的三维打印全拱框架的边缘间隙。
目的:本研究的目的是评估采用不同制造技术制作的全弓框架(FAFs)的全弓框架(all-on- 4和all-on- 6种植体设计的边缘间隙。环境和设计:这是一项体外研究。材料和方法:采用选择性激光熔化(SLM)和电子束熔化(EBM)的铣削和三维打印技术制备了15个钛faf (n = 5/组)。使用精度为1 μm的显微镜测量框架与基台之间的边缘间隙。经校准的审查员进行了三次测量(班级内相关系数为0.996;P < 0.001),在基台和框架之间的颊和舌界面处。采用统计学分析:采用双因素方差分析评估种植体设计和制造技术的影响(α = 0.05)。结果:在比较种植体设计时,all-on- 4组(铣削组[P = 0.002]和SLM组[P = 0.001])的边缘间隙值低于all-on- 6组。两种设计的EBM框架之间没有统计学上的显著差异。在all- In -four组中,铣削导致的边缘间隙值低于SLM (P = 0.021)和EBM (P = 0.001),而SLM组和EBM组之间无统计学差异(P = 0.163)。对于全- 6框架设计,铣削组(P = 0.008)和EBM组(P < 0.001)的边际间隙值低于SLM组。铣削组和EBM组之间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.160)。结论:采用全- 4位种植体设计修复时,应优先选择磨铣框架。对于全对六设计,铣削和EBM框架都可以指示。观察到的所有faf设计和制造技术的边际间隙值可以被认为是临床可接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信