Wear at the implant–framework interface between titanium implant platform and the additively manufactured titanium and cobalt–chromium frameworks

Abstract

PurposeTo measure the wear at the implant interface between the Grade 4 titanium (Ti) of the implant and frameworks fabricated using two additively manufactured alloys (Ti alloy and cobalt–chromium [Co–Cr]) pre‐ and post‐artificial aging.Material and methodsThree‐unit frameworks supported by two implants were additively manufactured (Atlantis; Dentsply Sirona) using Ti and Co–Cr dental alloys. Two implants (OsseoSpeed EV, Astra Tech; Dentsply Sirona) were torqued on each non‐engaging framework. The assembled implant–frameworks were secured into polyurethane foam blocks. Groups were created based on the material and surface assessed: framework (Ti‐framework and Co–Cr‐framework groups) and implant (Ti‐implant group). Two subgroups were created depending on the location: premolar (PM) and molar (M). Computed tomography images were obtained pre‐ (as manufactured) and post‐simulated mastication procedures. The pre‐ and post‐simulated mastication files of each specimen were aligned using the best‐fit algorithm using a metrology program. Wear was measured by calculating the volumetric discrepancies at the implant interface on 64 measurement points per area analyzed. Three‐way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05).ResultsThe mean volumetric discrepancy values ranged from 0.8 to 3.1 µm among all the subgroups tested. The group (framework vs. implant) (p < 0.001) and tooth location (p < 0.001) were significant factors of the mean volumetric discrepancy values obtained. The framework group presented with significantly lower volumetric discrepancy mean values (1 µm) compared with the implant group (3 µm), whereas the premolar area obtained significantly lower mean volumetric discrepancy values (1.9 µm) compared with the molar location (2.3 µm).ConclusionsVolumetric discrepancies were found at the implant–framework interface tested between the pre‐ and post‐artificial aging measurements ranging from 1 to 3 µm after 1,200,000 cyclic loading that simulated approximately 12 months of function.

Influence of the Manufacturing Trinomial (Technology, Printer, and Material) on the Marginal and Internal Discrepancies of Printed Metal Frameworks for the Fabrication of Tooth-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…6,7 Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies allow the fabrication of Co-Cr frameworks 8,9 for both toothsupported [10][11][12] and implant-supported prostheses. [13][14][15] Powder bed fusion technologies are the AM methods usually selected to process metals in dentistry. These technologies include selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), and electron beam melting (EBM).…”