Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface

Jemt, Torsten; Rubenstein, Jeffrey E.; Carlsson, Lennart; Lang, Brien R.

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90491-6

Cited by 104 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Those discrepancies may lead to both mechanical and biological complications. Stress-induced porcelain chippings, screw loosenings and fractures of the screw, abutment, or even the implant, were reported [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Biological complications as mucositis, periimplantitis [10][11][12], and implant loss caused by inappropriate loading were discussed, too [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study

Stimmelmayr¹,

Güth²,

Erdelt³

et al. 2011

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental restorations are increasingly manufactured by CAD/CAM systems. Currently, there are two alternatives for digitizing dental implants: direct intra-oral data capturing or indirect from a master cast, both with transfer caps (scanbodies). The aim of this study was the evaluation of the fit of the scanbodies and their ability of reposition. At the site of the first molars and canines, implants were placed bilaterally in a polymer lower arch model (original model), and an impression was taken for fabricating a stone cast (stone model). Ten white-light scans were obtained from the original and the stone model with the scanbodies in place. The scanbodies were retrieved after each scan and re-attached to the same implant or lab analogue. The first scan of the series served as control in both groups. The subsequent nine scans and control were superimposed using inspection software to identify the discrepancies of the four scanbodies in both experimental groups. The systematic error of digitizing the models was 13 μm for the polymer and 5 μm for the stone model. The mean discrepancy of the scanbodies was 39 μm (±58 μm) on the original implants versus 11 μm (±17 μm) on the lab analogues. The difference in scanbody discrepancy between original implants and lab analogues was statistically significant (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test). Scanbody discrepancy was higher on original implants than on lab analogues. Fit and reproducibility of the scanbodies on original implants should be improved to achieve higher accuracy of implant-supported CAD/CAM fabricated restorations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study

Stimmelmayr¹,

Güth²,

Erdelt³

et al. 2011

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fabrication of implant components and the effects of clinical and laboratorial phases can contribute to misfit between implant and prosthesis (2,3). Two possible complications emerge from this scenario: 1) biological -increase of the load transfer to the bone, and presence of mucosal inflammation due to the development of microflora in the micro-gap between the implant and the abutment with subsequent bone loss; and 2) prosthetic -loosening/ fracture of implant and/or prosthesis (4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relation between implant/abutment vertical misfit and torque loss of abutment screws

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated whether there is a direct correlation between the level of vertical misfit at the abutment/implant interface and torque losses (detorque) in abutment screws. A work model was obtained from a metal matrix with five 3.75 x 9 mm external hex implants with standard platform (4.1 mm). Four frameworks were waxed using UCLA type abutments and one-piece cast in commercially pure titanium. The misfit was analyzed with a comparator microscope after 20 Ncm torque. The highest value of misfit observed per abutment was used. The torque required to loose the screw was evaluated using a digital torque meter. The torque loss values, measured by the torque meter, were assumed as percentage of initial torque (100%) given to abutment screws. Pearson's correlation (=0.05) between the misfit values (29.08 ± 8.78 µm) and the percentage of detorque (50.71 ± 11.37%) showed no statistically significant correlation (p=0.295). Within the limitations of this study, it may be concluded that great vertical misfits dot not necessarily implies in higher detorque values.

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4] Any inaccuracy during the impression stage will result in a lack of fit and misfit of the prosthesis, especially in implant-supported prostheses. [4][5][6] In 1993, Barret et al verified that obtaining an accurate model for rehabilitation with implants depends on the type of impression material, the technique, the tray, and the number and position of the implants. 1 In 2010, Sorrentino et al noted that impressions performed with angled implants exhibited lower accuracy than those made with parallel implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of the Association Between the Tray and Impression Techniques on Angulated Implants Using the All-on-Four System

Ávila

Castanharo

Casalle

et al. 2015

Journal of Oral Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface

Cited by 104 publications

References 3 publications

Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study

Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study

Relation between implant/abutment vertical misfit and torque loss of abutment screws

Effect of the Association Between the Tray and Impression Techniques on Angulated Implants Using the All-on-Four System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About