植入物支持螺钉保留氧化锆FPD棒的传统和数字化工作流程的比较:使用SEM分析评估配合度和水泥间隙。

Vygandas Rutkūnas, Agne Gedrimiene, Reinhilde Jacobs, Mangirdas Malinauskas
{"title":"植入物支持螺钉保留氧化锆FPD棒的传统和数字化工作流程的比较:使用SEM分析评估配合度和水泥间隙。","authors":"Vygandas Rutkūnas,&nbsp;Agne Gedrimiene,&nbsp;Reinhilde Jacobs,&nbsp;Mangirdas Malinauskas","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the fit and cement gap of fixed partial dentures supported by two implants made using conventional and digital workflows.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients requiring fixed partial dentures supported by two implants were included in the study. Forty-eight zirconia fixed partial denture bars supported by two implants (AnyOne, MegaGen, Daegu, South Korea) were produced using a conventional (n = 24, group C) and digital (n = 24, group D) workflow. All implants had the same internal connection prosthetic platform. Silicone open tray impressions with splinted copings (group C) and digital impressions using a Trios 3 intraoral scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (group D) were taken for each patient. The fit and cement gap were assessed by scanning electron microscopy on the verified master cast. The distance between reference points on the titanium base and implant analogue was measured with and without tightening the prosthetic screw. The difference in distance was calculated and represented the misfit (Dmisfit). The cement gap (Dcement) was measured as the shortest vertical distance from the inferior edge of the bar to the top edge of the titanium base.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median Dmisfit values (interquartile range) differed significantly (P < 0.05) between the groups, with 59 (60) µm for group C and 78 (88) µm for group D. Fixed partial dentures fabricated using a digital workflow presented lower Dcement values (35 [26] µm) than the conventional group (38.9 [23] µm) (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both workflows produced different levels of fit and differently sized cement gaps when measured on the master casts using scanning electron microscopy. A cast-free digital workflow was associated with a smaller cement gap, but larger misfit was detected when measuring on the verified master cast.</p>","PeriodicalId":73463,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","volume":"14 2","pages":"199-210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of conventional and digital workflows for implant-supported screw-retained zirconia FPD bars: Fit and cement gap evaluation using SEM analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Vygandas Rutkūnas,&nbsp;Agne Gedrimiene,&nbsp;Reinhilde Jacobs,&nbsp;Mangirdas Malinauskas\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the fit and cement gap of fixed partial dentures supported by two implants made using conventional and digital workflows.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients requiring fixed partial dentures supported by two implants were included in the study. Forty-eight zirconia fixed partial denture bars supported by two implants (AnyOne, MegaGen, Daegu, South Korea) were produced using a conventional (n = 24, group C) and digital (n = 24, group D) workflow. All implants had the same internal connection prosthetic platform. Silicone open tray impressions with splinted copings (group C) and digital impressions using a Trios 3 intraoral scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (group D) were taken for each patient. The fit and cement gap were assessed by scanning electron microscopy on the verified master cast. The distance between reference points on the titanium base and implant analogue was measured with and without tightening the prosthetic screw. The difference in distance was calculated and represented the misfit (Dmisfit). The cement gap (Dcement) was measured as the shortest vertical distance from the inferior edge of the bar to the top edge of the titanium base.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median Dmisfit values (interquartile range) differed significantly (P < 0.05) between the groups, with 59 (60) µm for group C and 78 (88) µm for group D. Fixed partial dentures fabricated using a digital workflow presented lower Dcement values (35 [26] µm) than the conventional group (38.9 [23] µm) (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both workflows produced different levels of fit and differently sized cement gaps when measured on the master casts using scanning electron microscopy. A cast-free digital workflow was associated with a smaller cement gap, but larger misfit was detected when measuring on the verified master cast.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"volume\":\"14 2\",\"pages\":\"199-210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价两种种植体支撑固定义齿的配合度和骨水泥间隙。材料和方法:纳入需要双种植体支撑固定局部义齿的患者。采用常规(n = 24, C组)和数字(n = 24, D组)工作流程制作了48个由两种种植体(AnyOne, MegaGen,大邱,韩国)支持的氧化锆固定局部义齿棒。所有的假体都有相同的内部连接假体平台。每位患者采用夹板覆盖的硅胶开盘印模(C组)和使用Trios 3口内扫描仪(3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark)的数字印模(D组)。通过扫描电子显微镜对验证的主铸件进行配合和水泥间隙评估。在拧紧和不拧紧假体螺钉的情况下,测量钛基上的参考点与假体模拟物之间的距离。计算距离差并表示失配(Dmisfit)。水泥间隙(Dcement)测量为棒材下边缘到钛基上边缘的最短垂直距离。结果:两组间的Dmisfit中位数(四分位数范围)差异显著(P < 0.05), C组为59(60)µm, d组为78(88)µm,采用数字化流程制作的固定局部义齿的Dmisfit值(35[26]µm)低于常规组(38.9[23]µm) (P < 0.05)。结论:当使用扫描电子显微镜在主铸件上测量时,这两种工作流程产生了不同的配合水平和不同大小的水泥间隙。无浇铸的数字工作流程与较小的水泥间隙相关,但在测量经过验证的主浇铸时,检测到较大的不匹配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of conventional and digital workflows for implant-supported screw-retained zirconia FPD bars: Fit and cement gap evaluation using SEM analysis.

Purpose: To assess the fit and cement gap of fixed partial dentures supported by two implants made using conventional and digital workflows.

Materials and methods: Patients requiring fixed partial dentures supported by two implants were included in the study. Forty-eight zirconia fixed partial denture bars supported by two implants (AnyOne, MegaGen, Daegu, South Korea) were produced using a conventional (n = 24, group C) and digital (n = 24, group D) workflow. All implants had the same internal connection prosthetic platform. Silicone open tray impressions with splinted copings (group C) and digital impressions using a Trios 3 intraoral scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (group D) were taken for each patient. The fit and cement gap were assessed by scanning electron microscopy on the verified master cast. The distance between reference points on the titanium base and implant analogue was measured with and without tightening the prosthetic screw. The difference in distance was calculated and represented the misfit (Dmisfit). The cement gap (Dcement) was measured as the shortest vertical distance from the inferior edge of the bar to the top edge of the titanium base.

Results: The median Dmisfit values (interquartile range) differed significantly (P < 0.05) between the groups, with 59 (60) µm for group C and 78 (88) µm for group D. Fixed partial dentures fabricated using a digital workflow presented lower Dcement values (35 [26] µm) than the conventional group (38.9 [23] µm) (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Both workflows produced different levels of fit and differently sized cement gaps when measured on the master casts using scanning electron microscopy. A cast-free digital workflow was associated with a smaller cement gap, but larger misfit was detected when measuring on the verified master cast.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信