Alikhasi Marzieh, Rohanian Ahmad, Ghodsi Safoura, Kolde Amin Mohammadpour
Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Dental Student Research Center, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Eur J Dent. 2018 Jan-Mar;12(1):71-76. doi: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_314_17.
The aim of this experimental study was to compare retention of frameworks cast from wax patterns fabricated by three different methods.
Thirty-six implant analogs connected to one-piece abutments were divided randomly into three groups according to the wax pattern fabrication method ( = 12). Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milling machine, three-dimensional printer, and conventional technique were used for fabrication of waxing patterns. All laboratory procedures were performed by an expert-reliable technician to eliminate intra-operator bias. The wax patterns were cast, finished, and seated on related abutment analogs. The number of adjustment times was recorded and analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test. Frameworks were cemented on the corresponding analogs with zinc phosphate cement and tensile resistance test was used to measure retention value.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis. Level of significance was set at < 0.05.
The mean retentive values of 680.36 ± 21.93 N, 440.48 ± 85.98 N, and 407.23 ± 67.48 were recorded for CAD/CAM, rapid prototyping, and conventional group, respectively. One-way ANOVA test revealed significant differences among the three groups ( < 0.001). The Tukey test showed significantly higher retention for CAD/CAM group ( < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the two other groups ( = 0.54). CAD/CAM group required significantly more adjustments ( < 0.001).
CAD/CAM-fabricated wax patterns showed significantly higher retention for implant-supported cement-retained frameworks; this could be a valuable help when there are limitations in the retention of single-unit implant restorations.
本实验研究旨在比较通过三种不同方法制作的蜡型铸造的支架的固位力。
将连接到一体式基台的36个种植体代型根据蜡型制作方法随机分为三组(每组n = 12)。使用计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)铣床、三维打印机和传统技术制作蜡型。所有实验室操作均由一名经验丰富且可靠的技术人员进行,以消除操作者内部偏差。将蜡型铸造、修整并安装在相关的基台代型上。记录调整次数,并通过Kruskal-Wallis检验进行分析。使用磷酸锌水门汀将支架粘结在相应的代型上,并通过拉伸阻力测试来测量固位值。
采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和Tukey检验进行统计分析。显著性水平设定为P < 0.05。
CAD/CAM组、快速成型组和传统组的平均固位力值分别记录为680.36 ± 21.93 N、440.48 ± 85.98 N和407.23 ± 67.48 N。单因素方差分析显示三组之间存在显著差异(P < 0.001)。Tukey检验显示CAD/CAM组的固位力显著更高(P < 0.001),而其他两组之间无显著差异(P = 0.54)。CAD/CAM组需要显著更多的调整(P < 0.001)。
CAD/CAM制作的蜡型在种植体支持的粘结固位支架中显示出显著更高的固位力;当单单位种植体修复体的固位存在限制时,这可能是一个有价值的帮助。