All measured frameworks presented signs of misfit, indicating that no framework had a "passive fit." Frameworks produced in a more routine clinical environment seem to present greater levels of distortion as compared with frameworks produced in a strict test situation. However, all measured frameworks presented levels of precision of fit within limits considered to be clinically acceptable in earlier studies of frameworks placed on abutments.

No abstract

Implant-supported frameworks can be produced in either Ti or CoCr using either CNC milling or additive manufacturing with a fit well within the range of 20 μm in the horizontal plane and 10 μm in the vertical plane. The fit of frameworks of both materials and production techniques are affected by the ceramic veneering procedure to a small extent.

Statistically significantly more prostheses needed adjustment or replacement in the early group. The present study suggested lower CSRs for prostheses and implants in the early loading group after 5 years; the difference was not statistically significant. Larger study samples are needed to verify statistically small differences between treatment techniques.

Both conventional and robot technique presented low levels of displacement of the implant analogues in all casts. The test technique was less precise, but the difference in accuracy was small, and both techniques are precise enough for single crowns and short-span, implant-supported fixed partial prostheses.