Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
PurposeTo assess vertical and horizontal fit, screw removal torque, and stress analysis (considered biomechanical aspects) of full‐arch implant frameworks manufactured in Ti‐6Al‐4V through milling, and additive manufacturing Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) and Electron Beam Melting (EBM), and the effect of the thermo‐mechanical treatment Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) as a post‐treatment after manufacturing.Material and MethodsMaxillary full‐arch implant frameworks were made by milling, DMLS, and EBM. The biomechanical assessments were screw removal torque, strain‐gauge analyses, and vertical and horizontal marginal fits. The vertical fit was assessed by the single‐screw test and with all screws tightened. All frameworks were submitted to a standardized HIP cycle (920°C, 1000 bar pressure, 2 h), and the tests were repeated (α = 0.05).ResultsAt the initial time, milled frameworks presented higher screw removal torque values, and DMLS and EBM frameworks presented lower levels of strain. Using the single‐screw test, milled and DMLS frameworks presented higher vertical fit values, and with all screws tightened and horizontally, higher fit values were found for milled frameworks, followed by DMLS and EBM. After HIP, milling and EBM frameworks presented higher screw removal torque values; the lowest strain values were found for EBM. Using the single‐screw test, milled and DMLS frameworks presented higher vertical fit values, and with all screws tightened and horizontally no differences were found.ConclusionsDMLS and EBM full‐arch frameworks presented adequate values of screw removal torque, strain, and marginal fit, although the worst values of marginal fit were found for EBM frameworks. The HIP cycle enhanced the screw removal torque of milled and EBM frameworks and reduced the strain values of milled frameworks. The HIP represents a reliable post‐treatment for Ti‐6Al‐4V dental prostheses produced by milling and EBM technologies.
PurposeTo assess vertical and horizontal fit, screw removal torque, and stress analysis (considered biomechanical aspects) of full‐arch implant frameworks manufactured in Ti‐6Al‐4V through milling, and additive manufacturing Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) and Electron Beam Melting (EBM), and the effect of the thermo‐mechanical treatment Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) as a post‐treatment after manufacturing.Material and MethodsMaxillary full‐arch implant frameworks were made by milling, DMLS, and EBM. The biomechanical assessments were screw removal torque, strain‐gauge analyses, and vertical and horizontal marginal fits. The vertical fit was assessed by the single‐screw test and with all screws tightened. All frameworks were submitted to a standardized HIP cycle (920°C, 1000 bar pressure, 2 h), and the tests were repeated (α = 0.05).ResultsAt the initial time, milled frameworks presented higher screw removal torque values, and DMLS and EBM frameworks presented lower levels of strain. Using the single‐screw test, milled and DMLS frameworks presented higher vertical fit values, and with all screws tightened and horizontally, higher fit values were found for milled frameworks, followed by DMLS and EBM. After HIP, milling and EBM frameworks presented higher screw removal torque values; the lowest strain values were found for EBM. Using the single‐screw test, milled and DMLS frameworks presented higher vertical fit values, and with all screws tightened and horizontally no differences were found.ConclusionsDMLS and EBM full‐arch frameworks presented adequate values of screw removal torque, strain, and marginal fit, although the worst values of marginal fit were found for EBM frameworks. The HIP cycle enhanced the screw removal torque of milled and EBM frameworks and reduced the strain values of milled frameworks. The HIP represents a reliable post‐treatment for Ti‐6Al‐4V dental prostheses produced by milling and EBM technologies.
Objetivo: Comparar dos procedimientos de soldadura convencionales empleando una aleación de Cr-Co, para conectar barras coladas seccionadas a ser fijadas sobre implantes. Materiales y métodos: A partir de un modelo maestro que representa un maxilar desdentado con cuatro implantes, se confeccionaron veinte (n=20) probetas seccionadas en tres partes. Se conformaron dos grupos, cada uno con diez (n=10) ejemplares. Una vez acondicionadas, fueron atornilladas al modelo maestro. Su desajuste inicial se analizó utilizando una lupa estereoscópica, con una cámara incorporada y un software. Las partes fueron soldadas empleando un procedimiento diferente para cada grupo. Las correspondientes al Grupo I se invistieron en un block refractario a base de sílico-fosfato. Las del Grupo II se montaron en una estructura metálica Clever Spider. El desajuste fue mensurado y los resultados procesados estadísticamente. El nivel de significación fue establecido en p<0,05. Resultados: El Grupo I tuvo un desajuste inicial de 97,30±13,81μm y el Grupo II de 98,53±11,24μm. Luego de la soldadura, el Grupo I registró 98,53±17,17μm, 1,23μm mayor respecto al inicial. En el Grupo II se observó 103,13±17,61μm, 4,60μm por encima del original. Se analizaron mediante prueba t de Student; en ambos casos el resultado fue de p>0,05. Al comparar entre sí los grupos I y II, por medio de la prueba t y de comprobación no paramétrica de Mann-Whitney, se observaron diferencias no significativas, p=0,41 y p=0,38 respectivamente. Conclusiones: Bajo las condiciones de este estudio, se observó que los dos métodos de soldadura analizados fueron confiables para unir supraestructurasos metálicas sin que se afecte su ajuste final. Palabras clave: Ajuste pasivo, discrepancia marginal, implantes dentales, sobredentadura, soldadura. /Aim: Compare two conventional welding procedures using a Cr-Co alloy, to connect sectioned cast bars to be fixed on implants. Materials and methods: From a master model representing a toothless jaw with four implants, twenty (n=20) specimens sectioned into three parts were made. Two groups were formed, each with ten (n=10) specimens. Once conditioned, they were screwed to the master model. Its initial mismatch was analyzed using a stereoscopic magnifier, with a built-in camera and a software. The parts were welded using a different procedure for each group. Those corresponding to Group I were invested in a refractory block based on silyl-phosphate. Those of Group II were mounted on a Clever Spider metal structure. The mismatch was measured, and the results processed statistically. The level of significance was established at p<0.05. Results: Group I had an initial mismatch of 97.30 ±13.81μm, and Group II of 98.53±11.24μm. After welding, Group I registered 98.53±17.17μm, 1.23μm higher than the initial one. In Group II, 103.13±17.61μm was observed, 4.60μm above the original. They were analyzed using Student’s t test; in both cases the result was p>0.05. When comparing groups I and II, using the t-test and the Mann-Whitney nonparametric verification, non-significant differences were observed, p=0.41 and p=0.38 respectively. Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, it was observed that the two welding methods analyzed were reliable for joining metallic superstructures without affecting their final fit. Keywords: Dental implants, marginal discrepancy, overdenture, passive fit, welding.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.