Evaluation with a Coordinate-Measuring Machine of Dimensional Accuracy of the Abutment Duplication Technique in Cement- Retained Implant Restoration.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of a proposed duplication technique in terms of one- and three-dimensional discrepancies between an original abutment and polyurethane duplicates obtained through a conventional workflow in single-implant rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A titanium, shoulderless abutment was chosen for a single-implant cemented rehabilitation. The master cast was made using a plastic-based die system, and the implant portion was separated. The implant section was consecutively duplicated eight times using a manual technique with polyvinyl siloxane and unfilled polyurethane resin as impression and die materials. The duplicates were analyzed with a coordinate-measuring machine (SmartScope Flash 200, Optical Gaging Products): one- and three- dimensional discrepancies were determined for each duplicate on 20 analysis points (A to T) located on the abutment surface. Changes in the abutment radius were also calculated to estimate the effects on cement thicknesses. RESULTS: One-dimensional discrepancies were -0.5 Å} 61.2 µm, -6.6 Å} 39.7 µm, and -19.4 Å} 47.8 µm on the X, Y, and Z axes, respectively; three-dimensional variation was -66.4 Å} 60.1 µm. Friedman test showed no significant difference between duplicates' one-dimensional variations on X (P = .059), Y (P = .156), or Z (P = .223) axes; a significant difference was found regarding three-dimensional changes (P < .001). Dunn test showed higher discrepancies on the X axis and on the abutment head. Mean variation of the abutment radius was -12.09 µm. CONCLUSIONS: The abutment duplication technique was shown to be an accurate and repeatable procedure for single cementable restorations.

Evaluation with a coordinate measuring machine of dimensional accuracy of the Abutment Duplication Technique in cement-retained implant restoration.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of a proposed duplication technique in terms of one- and three-dimensional discrepancies between an original abutment and polyurethane duplicates obtained through a conventional workflow in single-implant rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A titanium shoulder-less abutment was chosen for a single-implant cemented rehabilitation. The master cast was made using a plastic-based die system, and the implant portion was separated. The implant section was consecutively duplicated eight times using a manual technique with polyvinyl siloxane and unfilled polyurethane resin as impression and die materials. The duplicates were analyzed with a coordinate-measuring machine (SmartScope Flash200, OGP): one- and three- dimensional discrepancies were determined for each duplicate on 20 analysis points (A-T) located on the abutment surface. Changes in the abutment radius were also calculated to estimate effects on cement thicknesses. RESULTS: One-dimensional discrepancies were -0.5 µm ± 61.2µm, ¬-6.6 ± 39.7 µm, and -19.4 ± 47.8 µm on X, Y, and Z axes, respectively; three-dimensional variation was -66.4 ± 60.1 µm. The Friedman test showed no significant difference between duplicates' one-dimensional variations on X (p = 0.059), Y (p = 0.156), or Z (p = 0.223) axes; a significant difference was found regarding three-dimensional changes (p < 0.001). The Dunn test showed higher discrepancies on the X axis and on the abutment head. Mean variation of the abutment radius was -12.09 µm. CONCLUSION: The abutment duplication technique was shown to be an accurate and repeatable procedure for single cementable restorations.