OBJECTIVE: To analyze the precision of fit of implant-supported screw-retained computer-aided-designed and computer-aided-manufactured (CAD/CAM) zirconium dioxide (ZrO) frameworks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Computer-aided-designed and computer-aided-manufactured ZrO frameworks (NobelProcera) for a screw-retained 10-unit implant-supported reconstruction on six implants (FDI positions 15, 13, 11, 21, 23, 25) were fabricated using a laser (ZrO-L, N = 6) and a mechanical scanner (ZrO-M, N = 5) for digitizing the implant platform and the cuspid-supporting framework resin pattern. Laser-scanned CAD/CAM titanium (TIT-L, N = 6) and cast CoCrW-alloy frameworks (Cast, N = 5) fabricated on the same model and designed similar to the ZrO frameworks were the control. The one-screw test (implant 25 screw-retained) was applied to assess the vertical microgap between implant and framework platform with a scanning electron microscope. The mean microgap was calculated from approximal and buccal values. Statistical comparison was performed with non-parametric tests. RESULTS: No statistically significant pairwise difference was observed between the relative effects of vertical microgap between ZrO-L (median 14 μm; 95% CI 10-26 μm), ZrO-M (18 μm; 12-27 μm) and TIT-L (15 μm; 6-18 μm), whereas the values of Cast (236 μm; 181-301 μm) were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than the three CAD/CAM groups. A monotonous trend of increasing values from implant 23 to 15 was observed in all groups (ZrO-L, ZrO-M and Cast P < 0.001, TIT-L P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Optical and tactile scanners with CAD/CAM technology allow for the fabrication of highly accurate long-span screw-retained ZrO implant-reconstructions. Titanium frameworks showed the most consistent precision. Fit of the cast alloy frameworks was clinically inacceptable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Katsoulis et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: