A comparative analysis of the passivity of fit of complete arch implant-supported frameworks fabricated using different acquisition techniques.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in recording edentulous jaws has improved recently. However, improvement in accuracy does not necessarily imply the clinical validity of the scans, and limited information is available regarding the manufacture of passively fitting prostheses.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to analyze the passivity of complete arch screw-retained frameworks fabricated using different acquisition techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A 3-dimensional maxillary edentulous model to receive all-on-4 screw-retained frameworks was prototyped. Eighteen polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) frameworks were fabricated with a 5-axis milling machine and divided into 3 groups according to the acquisition technique (n=6): scanned by using an IOS (CEREC Primescan; Dentsply Sirona), scanned with the aid of an auxiliary device by using the same IOS, and by using a conventional impression and then scanning the stone cast with an extraoral scanner (EOS). The passivity of fit of the frameworks was tested with the 1-screw test, the terminal screw of the framework assembly was tightened on the multiunit abutment (MUA), and the vertical marginal gap (µm) was measured at the other 3 framework-to-abutment interfaces by using a digital microscope at ×40 magnification. A modification to the 1-screw test was analyzed by tightening all screws and then unscrewing all except 1 of the anterior abutments. Data were explored for normality by using the theoretical quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots and the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. The Friedman test compared data between the different acquisition techniques; the tightening methods and locations (buccal and palatal) were used as the block variable. The post hoc Dunn test was used when the Friedman test was significant. The Kruksal-Wallis test compared the data from the 2 groups of the tightening methods and the 2 location groups. The aligned rank transformation (ART) ANOVA test was used for the interaction effects among the 3 variables. A multiway ANOVA was applied to the ranked data. (α=.05 for all tests).

RESULTS

Significant differences were found among all groups (P<.001). Regarding the passivity of fit, the mean vertical marginal gap was 50 µm for frameworks fabricated from an intraoral scan with the aid of an auxiliary device, 62 µm for frameworks fabricated by using an IOS, and 140 µm for frameworks fabricated by using an EOS. No significant difference was found among all groups regarding the tightening method (P=.355) or location measured (P=.175).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital scanning with the aid of an auxiliary device resulted in the best fit; however, digital approaches with or without the auxiliary device resulted in a more accurate fit with a smaller marginal gap than with the conventional impression.