Alternative method to evaluate the adaptation of implant-supported multi-unit prosthetic frameworks
Alternative method to evaluate the adaptation of implant-supported multi-unit prosthetic frameworks
复制标题
评估种植体支持的多单元假肢框架适应性的替代方法
DOI：
10.1111/jopr.12644
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Wang Jiawei
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zhou Ying;Li Yong;Ma Xiao;Huang Yiqing;Wang Jiawei
目的有多种方法可以评估牙科修复体的适应性;然而，其中只有少数方法可以评估整个框架的适应性。本研究旨在提出一种替代方法来评估种植体支持的多单元Co-Cr合金frameworks.Materials和MethodsA四单元框架的适应性，由两个种植体支持，使用计算机设计。使用3Shape软件在支架的基台表面随机设计6个直径为0.2 mm的点进行测量。然后，通过铣削和选择性激光熔化（SLM）技术（每种技术n = 10）制造钴铬框架。它们随后被扫描并以立体光刻格式导出为文件。在设计的框架和制造的框架中测量两个点之间大致沿着3D方向的距离。计算了距离的差异。还使用印模复制方法评价了框架的适应性。结果采用新方法评价时，设计支架与铣削支架之间的平均距离差为0.046 ± 0.057 mm。该结果与设计支架和SLM支架之间的结果（0.073 ± 0.048mm，p< 0.05）有显著性差异。当使用印模复型方法进行评价时，研磨后的框架的平均边缘间隙宽度为44.44 ± 8.61 μm。结论该方法可用于评价种植体支持的多单元支架的适应性，与传统的印模复制技术相结合可使评价更加有效和全面。
PurposeVarious methods to evaluate the adaptation of dental prostheses are available; however, only a few of these methods assess the adaptation of the framework as a whole. This study aimed to propose an alternative method to evaluate the adaptation of implant‐supported multi‐unit Co–Cr alloy frameworks.Materials and MethodsA four‐unit framework supported by two implants was designed using a computer. Six dots with a diameter of 0.2 mm were designed randomly using 3Shape software on the abutment surface of the framework for measurement. Then, Co–Cr frameworks were fabricated via the milled and selective laser melting (SLM) techniques (n = 10 for each technique). They were subsequently scanned and exported as files in stereolithography format. The distances between two dots roughly along 3D directions were measured in both the designed framework and fabricated frameworks. The differences in distances were calculated. The adaptation of the frameworks was also evaluated using the impression replica method. The data were compared and statistically analyzed viat‐test.ResultsThe average difference of the distances between the designed and milled frameworks was 0.046 ± 0.057 mm when evaluated using the new method. This result was significantly different from that between the designed and SLM frameworks (0.073 ± 0.048 mm,p< 0.05). The average marginal gap width of the milled frameworks was 44.44 ± 8.61 μm when evaluated using the impression replica method. This result was also significantly different from that of the SLM frameworks (57.31 ± 7.97 μm,p< 0.05).ConclusionsThe new method can evaluate the adaptation of implant‐supported multi‐unit frameworks, thereby making assessments more effective and comprehensive when it is combined with the traditional impression replica technique.