Lops Diego, Meneghello Roberto, Sbricoli Luca, Savio Gianpaolo, Bressan Eriberto, Stellini Edoardo
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Jan/Feb;33(1):23-30. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5411.
The aim of this in vitro study was to verify whether or not stock and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) abutments show similar precision in the connection with the respective implants.
Ten CAD/CAM titanium abutments were compared with 10 stock titanium abutments. Each abutment fit a regular-platform implant (Institute Straumann). Implants and abutments were measured independently and then connected. During the connection procedure, the torque was measured using a six-axes load cell. Then, outer geometric features of the implant-abutment connection were measured again. Finally, the assembly was sectioned to provide the analysis of inner surfaces in contact. The geometric measurements were performed using a multisensored opto-mechanical coordinate measuring machine. The following parameters were measured and compared for the CAD/CAM and stock titanium abutment groups, respectively: width of interference and interference length between the conical surfaces of the implant and abutment; and volume of material involved in the implant-abutment connection.
Interference width mean ± SD values of 18 ± 0.5 and 14 μ 0.5 μm were calculated for the stock and CAD/CAM titanium abutment groups, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P = .02). Furthermore, the interference length mean ± SD values of 763 ± 10 and 816 ± 43 μm were calculated for stock and CAD/CAM titanium abutment groups, respectively. The difference was also statistically significant (P = .04). Finally, the volume of material involved in the implant-abutment connection was compared between stock and CAD/CAM titanium abutment groups; the mean ± SD values of 0.134 ± 0.014 and 0.108 ± 0.023 mm were significantly different (P = .009).
Both standard and CAD/CAM abutment groups showed a three-dimensional (3D) seal activation after the screw tightening. Nevertheless, stock titanium abutments showed a significantly higher volume of material involved in the implant-abutment connection compared with that of CAD/CAM titanium abutments.
本体外研究的目的是验证库存基台和计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)基台在与各自种植体连接时是否显示出相似的精度。
将10个CAD/CAM钛基台与10个库存钛基台进行比较。每个基台适配一个常规平台种植体(士卓曼公司)。分别对种植体和基台进行测量,然后进行连接。在连接过程中,使用六轴测力传感器测量扭矩。然后,再次测量种植体-基台连接的外部几何特征。最后,将组件切开以分析接触的内表面。使用多传感器光机电坐标测量机进行几何测量。分别对CAD/CAM和库存钛基台组测量并比较以下参数:种植体和基台锥形表面之间的干涉宽度和干涉长度;以及种植体-基台连接中涉及的材料体积。
库存钛基台组和CAD/CAM钛基台组的干涉宽度平均值±标准差分别计算为18±0.5和14±0.5μm。差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.02)。此外,库存钛基台组和CAD/CAM钛基台组的干涉长度平均值±标准差分别计算为763±10和816±43μm。差异也具有统计学意义(P = 0.04)。最后,比较了库存钛基台组和CAD/CAM钛基台组种植体-基台连接中涉及的材料体积;平均值±标准差分别为0.134±0.014和0.108±0.023mm,差异显著(P = 0.009)。
标准基台组和CAD/CAM基台组在拧紧螺钉后均显示出三维(3D)密封激活。然而,与CAD/CAM钛基台相比,库存钛基台在种植体-基台连接中涉及的材料体积明显更大。