Accuracy of fit of implant-supported bars fabricated on definitive casts made by different dental stones

Realization of a Dental Framework by 3D Printing in Material Cobalt-Chromium with Superior Precision and Fitting Accuracy

We report on the generation of a cobalt-chromium dental framework with superior precision and fitting accuracy using selective laser melting. The objective of this study is the reduction of surface roughness and the possibility to manufacture a dental framework with high precision for passive fit with attachments, in particular a round tack. After selective laser melting, the dental framework is thermally post processed at 750 °C, shot-blasted with glass and highly polished. Nominal to actual 3D form deviation is analyzed by stripe light projection, revealing deviations being less than 250 μm, i.e., warpage is as low as to permit dental application and accurate passive fit. In particular, the critical area of the dental framework, the fixture to the implant (overdenture) shows negligible deviations. This superior fitting accuracy is confirmed by joining the bar with a testing stylus.

In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants

Purpose

To determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials.

Materials and Methods

Impressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS3 and Carestream CS 3600). STL files of the different methods were superimposed and analyzed with control software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems) to determine the mean deviation between scans.

Results

Compared to elastomeric impressions, optical impressions showed a significantly improved mean precision. TRIOS3 and CS3600 showed a significantly improved mean trueness compared to that of closed tray, CEREC Omnicam and TrueDefinition. All methods showed a certain degree of implant rotation over their axes, which was significantly higher in the closed tray and the open tray nonsplinted techniques.

Conclusions

Optical impressions, taken under these in vitro conditions, showed improved accuracy compared with that of elastomeric impressions.