No abstract

This study evaluated the vertical discrepancy of implant-fixed 3-unit structures. Frameworks were constructed with laser-sintered Co-Cr, and vacuum-cast Co-Cr, Ni-Cr-Ti, and Pd-Au. Samples of each alloy group were randomly luted in standard fashion using resin-modified glass-ionomer, self-adhesive, and acrylic/urethane-based cements (n = 12 each). Discrepancies were SEM analyzed. Three-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were run (P < 0.05). Laser-sintered structures achieved the best fit per cement tested. Within each alloy group, resin-modified glass-ionomer and acrylic/urethane-based cements produced comparably lower discrepancies than the self-adhesive agent. The abutment position did not yield significant differences. All misfit values could be considered clinically acceptable.

Objectives. This study aimed to evaluate the vertical discrepancy of implant-supported crown structures constructed with vacuum-casting and Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) technologies, and luted with different cement types. Study Design. Crown copings were fabricated using: (1) direct metal laser sintered Co-Cr (LS); (2) vacuum-cast Co-Cr (CC); and (3) vacuum-cast Ti (CT). Frameworks were luted onto machined implant abutments under constant seating pressure. Each alloy group was randomly divided into 5 subgroups (n = 10 each) according to the cement system utilized: Subgroup 1 (KC) used resin-modified glass-ionomer Ketac Cem Plus; Subgroup 2 (PF) used Panavia F 2.0 dual-cure resin cement; Subgroup 3 (RXU) used RelyX Unicem 2 Automix self-adhesive dual-cure resin cement; Subgroup 4 (PIC) used acrylic/urethane-based temporary Premier Implant Cement; and Subgroup 5 (DT) used acrylic/urethane-based temporary DentoTemp cement. Vertical misfit was measured by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Two-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were run to investigate the effect of alloy/fabrication technique, and cement type on vertical misfit. The statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. Results. The alloy/manufacturing technique and the luting cement affected the vertical discrepancy (p < 0.001). For each cement type, LS samples exhibited the best fit (p < 0.01) whereas CC and CT frames were statistically similar. Within each alloy group, PF and RXU provided comparably greater discrepancies than KC, PIC, and DT, which showed no differences. Conclusions. Laser sintering may be an alternative to vacuum-casting of base metals to obtain passive-fitting implant-supported crown copings. The best marginal adaptation corresponded to laser sintered structures luted with glass-ionomer KC, or temporary PIC or DT cements. The highest discrepancies were recorded for Co-Cr and Ti cast frameworks bonded with PF or RXU resinous agents. All groups were within the clinically acceptable misfit range. Key words:Dental alloy, laser sintering, implant-supported prostheses, vertical discrepancy, vertical misfit.

Purpose: The aim of this report is to present photogrammetry as a reliable step in the fabrication of a full-arch immediate rehabilitation. Materials and Methods: A 59-yearold man attended the department seeking dental rehabilitation for the sequelae of severe oral health neglect. The mandibular teeth suffered from advanced periodontal disease and the patient wore a maxillary complete denture. An irreversible hydrocolloid impression of the mandibular arch was made, poured in stone, and digitally scanned to create the first stereolithography (STL) file. All teeth with the exception of two retained as landmarks were extracted, and seven implants were placed under local anesthesia and their positions recorded using photogrammetry. Maxillary and mandibular dental arch alginate impressions were made, poured in laboratory stone, and scanned. A provisional restoration was placed 7 hours after surgery using the STL files to determine the best-fit line. Results: Radiographic and clinical follow-up after 1 year showed a favorable evolution of the implants. No screw loosening or other mechanical or biologic complications were observed. Conclusion: The case history using the described system suggests certain advantages over conventional techniques. More research is needed to assess the possible benefits associated with photogrammetry when making implant-supported restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:71-73.