This study aimed to evaluate the influence of different framework materials on the global and region-specific fabrication accuracy and framework fit. A cuboid prism (Ø12 × 14 × 1 mm) was fabricated, and two implant analogs were positioned 16 mm apart. This assembly served as the master model. Scan bodies were subsequently secured onto their respective implant analogs, and the master model was scanned using a laboratory scanner to generate the reference STL dataset. A total of 60 frameworks were subtractively fabricated from three different materials (Trinia, TriLor, and 3Y-TZP zirconia n = 20 per material). Global and region-specific fabrication accuracy (marginal, axial, occlusal, and intaglio regions on premolar and molar abutments) were quantified three-dimensionally using root mean square (RMS) error values. Fit was also assessed by combining the Sheffield test with the triple-scan protocol. Data were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). The results of the one-way ANOVA showed no significant difference between materials for global trueness (P = 0.149) or global precision (P = 0.140). Region-specific trueness and fit were significantly affected by abutment, material, and region, including interaction effects (P < 0.002 for all), as indicated by the three-way ANOVA. For marginal fit, Trinia showed the smallest discrepancy at the premolar abutment (17.12 μm), TriLor showed the smallest discrepancy at the molar abutment (25.52 μm), and zirconia showed the highest discrepancies for both abutments (53.84 μm and 63.12 μm). Zirconia also produced the highest occlusal discrepancies (68.02 μm and 88.24 μm), whereas TriLor showed the highest axial discrepancy (75.52 μm and 79.84 μm). Although global fabrication accuracy was comparable among the tested materials, clinically relevant discrepancies were region- and abutment-dependent. Trinia demonstrated comparatively favorable and more consistent performance across several assessed fabrication accuracy and fit outcomes.
Mdaghmesh et al. (2026) studied this question.