Comparative Verification of the Accuracy of Implant Models Made of PLA, Resin, and Silicone.

Polylactic acid (PLA) has gained considerable attention as an alternative to petroleum-based materials due to environmental concerns. We fabricated implant models with fused filament fabrication (FFF) 3D printers using PLA, and the accuracies of these PLA models were compared with those of plaster models made from silicone impressions and resin models made with digital light processing (DLP). A base model was obtained from an impact-training model. The scan body was mounted on the plaster, resin, and PLA models obtained from the base model, and the obtained information was converted to stereolithography (STL) data by the 3D scanner. The base model was then used as a reference, and its data were superimposed onto the STL data of each model using Geomagic control. The horizontal and vertical accuracies of PLA models, as calculated using the Tukey-Kramer method, were 97.2 ± 48.4 and 115.5 ± 15.1 µm, respectively, which suggests that the PLA model is the least accurate among the three models. In both cases, significant differences were found between PLA and gypsum and between the PLA and resin models. However, considering that the misfit of screw-retained implant frames should be ≤150 µm, PLA can be effectively used for fabricating implant models.

Validation of an implant stability measurement device using the percussion response: a clinical research study.

BACKGROUND: Several devices have been developed to measure implant-bone stability as an indicator of successful implant treatment; these include Osstell®, which measures the implant stability quotient (ISQ), and the more recent AnyCheck®, which relies on percussion for the implant stability test (IST). These devices make it possible to measure implant stability. However, no studies have compared the performance of AnyCheck® and Osstell® (i.e., IST and ISQ values) in clinical practice. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the correlation between primary and secondary implant stability using the Osstell® and AnyCheck® devices. METHODS: Ten patients (7 women; age [mean ± standard deviation]: 49.1 ± 13.3 years) with partially edentulous jaws who received a total of 15 implants were included. IST (AnyCheck®) and ISQ (Osstell®) values were measured immediately after implantation and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks post-implantation. Each measurement was performed three times, and the average value was used as the result. The correlation between measurements obtained using the two devices was determined using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The IST values ranged from 79.1 ± 2.87 to 82.4 ± 2.65. The ISQ values ranged from 76.0 ± 2.8 to 80.2 ± 2.35. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was r = 0.64 immediately after implantation, r = 0.29 at 1 week, r = 0.68 at 2 weeks, r = 0.53 at 3 weeks, r = 0.68 at 4 weeks, and r = 0.56 at 6 weeks. A positive correlation was found in all cases, except at week 1 when the correlation was weak; the IST and ISQ values decreased the most during the first postoperative week and increased during the second week. The IST values were also slightly higher at all measurement points. CONCLUSION: The ability to assess implant stability without removing the abutment during healing is essential for determining the timing of loading without the risk of bone resorption. The results of this study suggest that AnyCheck® is useful for determining primary and secondary implant stability.

Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraoral scanners (IOS) has facilitated the use of digital workflows for the fabrication of implant-supported prostheses not only for single missing teeth, but also for multiple missing teeth. However, the clinical application of IOS and computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in implant-supported prosthodontics remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants for bounded edentulous spaces and two-unit and three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses for free-end edentulous spaces. METHODS: This study enrolled 30 patients (n = 10 for each of the three groups) with an average age of 61.9 years. Conventional silicone-based and digital IOS-based impressions were made for all patients, and the implant superstructures were fabricated. We measured the scan-body misfit and compared the accuracy of the impressions for single-unit, two-unit, and three-unit implant prostheses with a bounded edentulous space by superimposing the standard triangulated language (STL) data obtained from IOS over the STL data of the plaster model used for final prosthesis fabrication. The scan bodies of the superimposed single-molar implant, two-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the mesial side, two-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the distal side, three-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the mesial side, and three-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the distal side were designated as A, B1, B2, C1, and C2, respectively. The misfit for each scan body was calculated and the accuracies were compared using the Tukey-Kramer method. RESULTS: The average scan-body misfit for conditions A, B1, B2, C1, and C2 was 40.5 ± 18.9, 45.4 ± 13.4, 56.5 ± 9.6, 50.7 ± 14.9, and 80.3 ± 12.4 µm, respectively. Significant differences were observed between the accuracies of A and B2, A and C2, and C1 and C2 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IOS and CAD/CAM can find clinical applications for implant-supported prostheses of up to three units for a bounded edentulous saddle. The use of IOS could render implant treatment easier, benefiting both the surgeons and patients. Prosthesis maladjustment may lead to peri-implantitis and prosthetic fracture. Therefore, further validation of the accuracy of IOS impressions is required in patients with multiple missing teeth in long-span implant prostheses.