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。

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":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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