Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

A Comparison of Fit of CNC-Milled Titanium and Zirconia Frameworks to Implants

Corresponding Author

Jaafar Abduo BDS, DClinDent

Prosthodontist, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Dr. Jaafar Abduo, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, PO Box 647, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Karl Lyons BDS, MDS, FRACDS,

Karl Lyons BDS, MDS, FRACDS

senior lecturer/prosthodontist, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

Neil Waddell MDipTech, HDE,

Neil Waddell MDipTech, HDE

senior lecturer, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

Vincent Bennani DDS, PhD,

Vincent Bennani DDS, PhD

senior lecturer/prosthodontist, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

Michael Swain BSc, PhD,

Michael Swain BSc, PhD

professor in dental materials, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author

Jaafar Abduo BDS, DClinDent,

Corresponding Author

Jaafar Abduo BDS, DClinDent

Prosthodontist, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Dr. Jaafar Abduo, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, PO Box 647, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Karl Lyons BDS, MDS, FRACDS,

Karl Lyons BDS, MDS, FRACDS

senior lecturer/prosthodontist, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

Neil Waddell MDipTech, HDE,

Neil Waddell MDipTech, HDE

senior lecturer, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

Vincent Bennani DDS, PhD,

Vincent Bennani DDS, PhD

senior lecturer/prosthodontist, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

Michael Swain BSc, PhD,

Michael Swain BSc, PhD

professor in dental materials, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 17 March 2011

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00334.x

Citations: 40

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

ABSTRACT

Background: Computer numeric controlled (CNC) milling was proven to be predictable method to fabricate accurately fitting implant titanium frameworks. However, no data are available regarding the fit of CNC-milled implant zirconia frameworks.

Purpose: To compare the precision of fit of implant frameworks milled from titanium and zirconia and relate it to peri-implant strain development after framework fixation.

Materials and Methods: A partially edentulous epoxy resin models received two Branemark implants in the areas of the lower left second premolar and second molar. From this model, 10 identical frameworks were fabricated by mean of CNC milling. Half of them were made from titanium and the other half from zirconia. Strain gauges were mounted close to the implants to qualitatively and quantitatively assess strain development as a result of framework fitting. In addition, the fit of the framework implant interface was measured using an optical microscope, when only one screw was tightened (passive fit) and when all screws were tightened (vertical fit). The data was statistically analyzed using the Mann–Whitney test.

Results: All frameworks produced measurable amounts of peri-implant strain. The zirconia frameworks produced significantly less strain than titanium. Combining the qualitative and quantitative information indicates that the implants were under vertical displacement rather than horizontal. The vertical fit was similar for zirconia (3.7 µm) and titanium (3.6 µm) frameworks; however, the zirconia frameworks exhibited a significantly finer passive fit (5.5 µm) than titanium frameworks (13.6 µm).

Conclusions: CNC milling produced zirconia and titanium frameworks with high accuracy. The difference between the two materials in terms of fit is expected to be of minimal clinical significance. The strain developed around the implants was more related to the framework fit rather than framework material.

REFERENCES

1 Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 156–158.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011S1156.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50: 399–410.
10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991; 6: 270–276.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
4 Karl M, Rosch S, Graef F, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. Strain situation after fixation of three-unit ceramic veneered implant superstructures. Implant Dent 2005; 14: 157–165.
10.1097/01.id.0000163809.37466.ac
PubMed Google Scholar
5 Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 2001; 10: 85–92.
10.1097/00008505-200104000-00003
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
6 Takahashi T, Gunne J. Fit of implant frameworks: an in vitro comparison between two fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 256–260.
10.1067/mpr.2003.40
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Ortorp A, Jemt T, Back T, Jalevik T. Comparisons of precision of fit between cast and CNC-milled titanium implant frameworks for the edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 194–200.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Al-Fadda SA, Zarb GA, Finer Y. A comparison of the accuracy of fit of 2 methods for fabricating implant-prosthodontic frameworks. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20: 125–131.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 299–307.
10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.007
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Ichim I, Swain MV, Kieser JA. Mandibular stiffness in humans: numerical predictions. J Biomech 2006; 39: 1903–1913.
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.05.022
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: PI Branemark, GA Zarb, T Albrektsson, eds. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co., 1985: 199.
Google Scholar
12 Ishigaki S, Nakano T, Yamada S, Nakamura T, Takashima F. Biomechanical stress in bone surrounding an implant under simulated chewing. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 97–102.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140113.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Abduo J, Bennani V, Lyons K, Waddell N, Swain M. A novel in vitro approach to assess the fit of implant frameworks. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02019.x.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 White GE. The construction of a mandibular fixed complete framework. In: GE White, ed. Osseointegrated dental technology. Chicago, IL: Quintessence, 1993: 103–129.
Google Scholar
15 de Torres EM, Rodrigues RC, de Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. The effect of commercially pure titanium and alternative dental alloys on the marginal fit of one-piece cast implant frameworks. J Dent 2007; 35: 800–805.
10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.013
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Tan PL, Gratton DG, Diaz-Arnold AM, Holmes DC. An in vitro comparison of vertical marginal gaps of CAD/CAM titanium and conventional cast restorations. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 378–383.
10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00302.x
PubMed Google Scholar
17 Reich S, Wichmann M, Nkenke E, Proeschel P. Clinical fit of all-ceramic three-unit fixed partial dentures, generated with three different CAD/CAM systems. Eur J Oral Sci 2005; 113: 174–179.
10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00197.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Kapos T, Ashy LM, Gallucci GO, Weber HP, Wismeijer D. Computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing in prosthetic implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 110–117.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Tsuge T, Hagiwara Y, Matsumura H. Marginal fit and microgaps of implant-abutment interface with internal anti-rotation configuration. Dent Mater J 2008; 27: 29–34.
10.4012/dmj.27.29
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Clelland NL, Carr AB, Gilat A. Comparison of strains transferred to a bone simulant between as-cast and postsoldered implant frameworks for a five-implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthodont 1996; 5: 193–200.
10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00296.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
21 Terminasov YS, Yakhontov AG. Distortion of lattice structure of metals by grinding. Met Sci Heat Treat 1959; 1: 19–23.
10.1007/BF01167412
Google Scholar
22 Kikuchi M. The use of cutting temperature to evaluate the machinability of titanium alloys. Acta Biomater 2009; 5: 770–775.
10.1016/j.actbio.2008.08.016
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Abele E, Frohlich B. High speed milling of titanium alloys. APEM 2008; 3: 131–140.
Google Scholar
24 Bindl A, Mormann WH. Fit of all-ceramic posterior fixed partial denture frameworks in vitro. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007; 27: 567–575.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Kohorst P, Brinkmann H, Li J, Borchers L, Stiesch M. Marginal accuracy of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated using different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing systems. Eur J Oral Sci 2009; 117: 319–325.
10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00622.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Ortorp A, Jemt T. CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: a 10-year comparative clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00232.x.
Google Scholar
27 Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 866–876.
10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02113.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Lindstrom H, Preiskel H. The implant-supported telescopic prosthesis: a biomechanical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16: 34–42.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Millington ND, Leung T. Inaccurate fit of implant superstructures. Part 1: stresses generated on the superstructure relative to the size of fit discrepancy. Int J Prosthodont 1995; 8: 511–516.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
30 Kunavisarut C, Lang LA, Stoner BR, Felton DA. Finite element analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit. J Prosthodont 2002; 11: 30–40.
10.1111/j.1532-849X.2002.00030.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume14, Issues1

Special Issue:Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics

May 2012

Pages e20-e29

A Comparison of Fit of CNC-Milled Titanium and Zirconia Frameworks to Implants

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley