2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysis of the misfit of dental implant-supported prostheses made with three manufacturing processes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
31
0
3

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
4
31
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Prostheses are individually designed using various techniques such as milling, casting, and sintering, and the fit is debated. Fernández and colleagues quantified the misfit of dental implant‐supported prostheses by comparing three manufacturing processes and found a correlation between surface roughness and microgap width . This microgap was associated with complications such as screw loosening or adverse biologic responses .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prostheses are individually designed using various techniques such as milling, casting, and sintering, and the fit is debated. Fernández and colleagues quantified the misfit of dental implant‐supported prostheses by comparing three manufacturing processes and found a correlation between surface roughness and microgap width . This microgap was associated with complications such as screw loosening or adverse biologic responses .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In relation to implant frameworks, milling consistently provides very accurately fitting frameworks with a vertical fit in the range of 1 to 27  μ m, and the influence of prosthesis span appears to be minimal [105, 106], which is opposite to the observation for cast metal frameworks [107]. Milled abutments have also been shown to have minimal roughness with a well-defined geometry edge and a vertical gap of 0.7  μ m. This is superior to abutments produced by selective laser melting (vertical gap = 11.3  μ m) or casting (vertical gap = 9.1  μ m) [108]. …”
Section: Computer-aided Production Streamsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Implant abutments produced by selective laser melting have been shown to exhibit greater surface roughness and microgaps compared to machined or cast abutments [108]. Further, the geometry of abutments produced by selective laser melting was blurred in comparison with the sharply defined connection of the milled components.…”
Section: Computer-aided Production Streamsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The impact of weaker material in thin section is further exacerbated by post‐processing milling of the fitting surfaces. This step was necessary, as the SLM external surfaces exhibit inherent coarseness and stepped roughness . This surface will affect the fit of framework and may damage the underlying implant unless it is refined by machining.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%