2018
DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201801916
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Vertical and Horizontal Misfit Analysis of 3-unit FDP Fabricated with Different Techniques and CAD/CAM Systems

Abstract: The aim of this is was evaluate the vertical and horizontal marginal adaptation of 3-unit fixed partial denture frameworks fabricated using different techniques and CAD/CAM systems. A total of 40 framework specimens were fabricated and divided into four groups as follows: lost-wax casting (G1); lost-wax casting with welding (G2); extraoral optical scanning of models (3S/DWOS) (G3); intraoral optical scanning (Cerec Bluecam/Sirona) (G4). A reference model was used to simulate a fixed partial denture with three … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The marginal adaptation of PLVs has been extensively studied. A better vertical marginal fit was reported for platinum foil veneers compared to veneers made with the refractory die technique [10], with a mean vertical marginal gap, defined as the vertical distance between the finish line of the prepared tooth and the margins of the fabricated veneers, was estimated 187 µm versus 242 µm, respectively [11] (Figure 1). These observations are in line with those of Sim and Ibbetson [12] (60 versus 290 µm) and Wall et al [13] (74 versus 132 µm).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…The marginal adaptation of PLVs has been extensively studied. A better vertical marginal fit was reported for platinum foil veneers compared to veneers made with the refractory die technique [10], with a mean vertical marginal gap, defined as the vertical distance between the finish line of the prepared tooth and the margins of the fabricated veneers, was estimated 187 µm versus 242 µm, respectively [11] (Figure 1). These observations are in line with those of Sim and Ibbetson [12] (60 versus 290 µm) and Wall et al [13] (74 versus 132 µm).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…A three-dimensional optical microscope (Quick Scope, Mitutoyo, United States) was used to calculate the dimensions of the samples. 8 This microscope had a digital table with a magnification of 350x and an accuracy of 1 μm. 8 Measurements were calculated using QSPAK software (Mitutoyo, United States).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 8 This microscope had a digital table with a magnification of 350x and an accuracy of 1 μm. 8 Measurements were calculated using QSPAK software (Mitutoyo, United States). 8 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concerning multi-implant systems, misfit conditions can occur because the accuracy of the bar-manufacturing process is not always adequate for determining a perfect passive coupling between the bar and implants. Such misfit conditions can determine heavy stress in bone tissues and may compromise the reliability and durability of the prosthesis and the mandible bone health [11][12][13][14][15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%