RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a simple, non-destructive method for assessing the misfit and passivity of implant-retained prostheses frameworks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To simulate the rehabilitation of a mandible posterior partially edentulous area using 3-unit screw-retained frameworks supported by two implants were fabricated and divided into the following five groups (n = 10 in each group): OP = one-piece framework cast in Co-Cr with the conventional method (control-group); Co-Cr frameworks sectioned and welded by laser (=LAS) or tungsten inert gas (=TIG); Co-Cr CAD-CAM = milled Co-Cr framework; Zir CAD-CAM = milled zirconia framework. The horizontal |X| and vertical |Y| misfits were measured using confocal laser scanning microscopy with one or both screws tightened. Data were analyzed by a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures and Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The greatest |X| misfit was observed in the OP group with both screws tightened (290 µm) and one screw tightened (388 and 340 µm). The conventional casting groups sectioned and welded by laser or TIG had lower mean values (235.35 µm, both screws tightened; and 275 µm, one screw tightened) than the OP framework. However, these values still exceeded those of the milled Co-Cr and zirconia frameworks (190 and 216 µm with both screws tightened). Across all reading conditions, every framework subjected to testing consistently maintained vertical |Y| misfit levels below the threshold of 53 µm; however, the milled frameworks exhibited higher vertical misfits than the frameworks obtained by the conventional cast method. CONCLUSIONS: The frameworks, whether cast and sectioned with laser welding or milled from Co-Cr, exhibit improved marginal misfit and enhanced passive fit when compared to other fabrication methods. Additionally, the use of confocal laser scanning microscopy is highly effective for passivity and misfit analysis.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rotational freedom between implant and abutment counterpart of two abutments types over external hexagon implants submitted to mechanical cycling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten implants with external hexagon (3.75 mm × 13 mm), five cast abutments, and five premachined abutments both with 4.1 mm plataform size were used in this study. Ten metallic crowns were fabricated using the two types of abutments and were fixed to each implant using titanium screws (Ti6Al4V). Rotational freedom measurements were made before and after the cast procedure and after the mechanical cycling. Groups were classified according to the rotational misfit register using University of California, Los Angeles abutment and implants as new (group 1 = G1); using crowns and implants after crown casting (group 2 = G2); and using crowns and implants after mechanical cycling (group 3 = G3). Oblique loading of 120N at 1.8 Hz and 5 × 10(5) cycles was applied on specimen. RESULTS: Statistical analysis (p < .05) showed that no significant difference was observed when cast abutment was compared with premachined abutment after casting (p = .390) and mechanical cycling (p = .439); however, significant difference was noted before the casting (p = .005) with higher values for the cast abutments. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it could be concluded that the abutment type used do not influenced the rotational freedom after casting and the amount of applied cycles (500,000 cycles) was not sufficient to significantly alter the values of rotational freedom at the implant/abutment joint.
