Purpose: To assess the fit and cement gap of fixed partial dentures supported by two implants made using conventional and digital workflows.
Keywords: Key words, cement gap, digital impression, implant prosthodontics, passive fit, , ABSTRACT
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  µm) than the conventional group (38.9  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. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest related to this study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31:192–200.
Objective: To examine the progression of experimental peri-implantitis around different implants placed in augmented and pristine sites.
Materials and methods: Six labrador dogs were used. Three months after tooth extraction, four implants with different surface modifications were installed on each side of the mandible. A standard osteotomy was applied on one side, while on the contralateral side the osteotomy was modified, resulting in a gap between the implant and the bone wall. The gap was filled with a bone substitute and covered by a resorbable membrane. Three months after implant installation, implants were exposed and healing abutments were connected. Two months later, oral hygiene procedures were abandoned and a cotton ligature was placed in a submarginal position around the neck of all implants and kept in place for 4 weeks. Following ligature removal, plaque formation continued for 6 months (spontaneous progression period). Radiographs were obtained throughout the experiment, and biopsies were collected and prepared for histological evaluation at the end of the spontaneous progression period.
Results: Differences in bone loss during the spontaneous progression period between pristine and augmented sites were small. The size and vertical dimension of the peri-implantitis lesion were larger at augmented than at pristine sites. Implants with non-modified surfaces exhibited smaller amounts of bone loss and smaller dimensions of peri-implantitis lesions than implants with modified surfaces.
Conclusion: Small differences in spontaneous progression of peri-implantitis were detected between pristine and augmented sites. Implants with modified surfaces exhibited more bone loss and larger lesions than implants with non-modified surfaces, irrespective of the type of surrounding bone. Correspondence to: email@example.com. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.