Event Title

Volumetric Misfit in CAD/CAM and Cast Implant Frameworks: A University Laboratory Study

Start Date

12-2-2010 12:00 AM

Description

Objective. This research compared volumetric fit between implants and frameworks manufactured with two technologies; CAD/CAM and conventional casting protocols. Materials and Methods. A five implant “patient” model was used to generate implant level impressions and 10 master casts. Five cast gold and five CAD/CAM titanium frameworks were fabricated. The implants and the restorative platforms were scanned. A computer digitized the framework platforms to fit onto the digitized implants by “lofting”, simulating right and left 1-screw tests. The misfit between the framework and implants were measured. Welch’s t-tests determined differences (p < 0.05) between technologies. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests determined right and left side differences. Results. CAD/CAM frameworks fit better than cast frameworks (p < 0.05). No differences exited between right and left sides within both systems (p > 0.05). Conclusions. This technology demonstrated that CAD/CAM implant supported frameworks had better volumetric fit than cast frameworks. No differences were found between the right and left 1-screw tests. Acknowledgments. The author acknowledges Biomet 3i for providing the CAD/CAM frameworks and implant components for this study; DSG Americus-Southeast (Clearwater, FL) Dental Lab for providing the gold alloy and for casting the frameworks; and 3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN for providing the impression material.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Feb 12th, 12:00 AM

Volumetric Misfit in CAD/CAM and Cast Implant Frameworks: A University Laboratory Study

Objective. This research compared volumetric fit between implants and frameworks manufactured with two technologies; CAD/CAM and conventional casting protocols. Materials and Methods. A five implant “patient” model was used to generate implant level impressions and 10 master casts. Five cast gold and five CAD/CAM titanium frameworks were fabricated. The implants and the restorative platforms were scanned. A computer digitized the framework platforms to fit onto the digitized implants by “lofting”, simulating right and left 1-screw tests. The misfit between the framework and implants were measured. Welch’s t-tests determined differences (p < 0.05) between technologies. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests determined right and left side differences. Results. CAD/CAM frameworks fit better than cast frameworks (p < 0.05). No differences exited between right and left sides within both systems (p > 0.05). Conclusions. This technology demonstrated that CAD/CAM implant supported frameworks had better volumetric fit than cast frameworks. No differences were found between the right and left 1-screw tests. Acknowledgments. The author acknowledges Biomet 3i for providing the CAD/CAM frameworks and implant components for this study; DSG Americus-Southeast (Clearwater, FL) Dental Lab for providing the gold alloy and for casting the frameworks; and 3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN for providing the impression material.