Open hour: senin - sabtu 09:00:00 - 20:00:00; minggu & tanggal merah tutup

Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribu...

Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distrib...

Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribu...

Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distrib...

Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal apex deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal apex deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribu...

Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distrib...

Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distrib...

Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of vertical deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of vertical deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measu...

Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measurement of vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations. b Three forms of horizontal deviation were measured: maximum, mesiodistal, and buccolingual directions Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measurement of vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations. b Three forms of horizontal deviation we...

Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases...

Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases of the experiment Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases of the experiment

Table 1 Summary of implant vertical, horizontal an...

 Vertical implant deviation  Anterior implantPosterior implantp values between anterior and posterior implants FGPGFHFGPGFHMean (mm)0.210.530.300.340.640.49FG = 0.07SD (mm)0.120.520.240.230.370.22PG = 0.27Maximum (mm)0.391.650.810.801.130.80FH = 0.05Minimum (mm)0.090.050.070.040.200.07p valuesAll groups = 0.12All groups = 0.08  Maximum horizontal implant neck deviation ...

About this article : Accuracy of static computer-a...

Abduo, J., Lau, D. Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols. Int J Implant Dent 6, 10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-0205-3 Download citation Received: 31 October 2019 Accepted: 21 January 2020 Published: 11 March 2020 DOI:...

Rights and permissions : Accuracy of static comput...

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were m...

Additional information : Accuracy of static comput...

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Ethics declarations : Accuracy of static computer-...

This study was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (1851406.1). The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were aware of the nature of the study and provided their consent prior to the commencement of the study. Not applicable Jaafar Abduo, and Douglas Lau declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information : Accuracy of static computer-a...

Associate Professor in Prosthodontics, Convenor of Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Dentistry (Implants), Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, 720 Swanston Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia Jaafar Abduo Periodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Douglas Lau You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar You can also search fo...

Funding : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

The implants, surgical kits, and guide sleeves were provided by Straumann Australia. This study has been funded by the Kernot Early Career Researcher Award. No financial income for conducting the study was received by the authors.

Acknowledgements : Accuracy of static computer-ass...

The authors would also like to thank Mr. Attila Gergely for his technical support in developing the simulated case and the input of the team of Digital Dental Network in designing the guides.

References : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Deeb GR, Allen RK, Hall VP, Whitley D 3rd, Laskin DM, Bencharit S. How accurate are implant surgical guides produced with desktop stereolithographic 3-dimentional printers? J Oral Maxillofac Surgery. 2017;75:2551–9. Horwitz J, Zuabi O, Machtei EE. Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1156–62...

References : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, Schutyser F, Boumans T. Accuracy of computer-guided surgery: a comparison of operator experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:407–13. Park SJ, Leesungbok R, Cui T, Lee SW, Ahn SJ. Reliability of a CAD/CAM surgical guide for implant placement: an in vitro comparison of surgeons' experience levels and implant sites. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:367–9. Marheine...

References : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Belser UC, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Taylor TD. Prosthetic management of the partially dentate patient with fixed implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:126–45. Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:43–61. Ramaglia L, Toti P, Sbordone...

Abbreviations : Accuracy of static computer-assist...

Three-dimensional Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing Cone beam computed tomography Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine Fully guided Freehand Pilot-guided Static computer-assisted implant placement Surface tessellation language

Availability of data and materials : Accuracy of s...

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conclusions : Accuracy of static computer-assisted...

Within the limitations of the present study, it can be hypothesized that apart from vertical deviation, the FG protocol is more accurate than the PG and FH protocols for all the evaluated variables in the hands of inexperienced clinicians. The PG and FH protocols were generally similar. The FG protocol did not seem to be influenced by the position of the placed implants, while the PG and FH protoc...

Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

For the majority of the evaluated variables, there was a tendency for the posterior implants to suffer from more deviation than anterior implants. This is in accordance with several published reports [5, 21, 22]. Interestingly, implants placed by the FG protocol seemed to be less vulnerable to inaccuracy by changing the implant sites, while the PG and FH protocols showed more horizontal and angle ...

Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

The superior accuracy and the less variation of the FG protocol is most likely related to the control of all the drilling steps and the implant placement via sequential use of precision sleeves. This eliminated the manual orientation and handling of the drills at any stage of drilling or implant placement. In accordance with these observations, Noharet et al. reported a better accuracy of the FG p...

Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

The overall outcome of this study indicates the superiority of the FG protocol in comparison to PG and FH protocols for placing single implants. With the exception of vertical deviation, this was obvious for horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations that were closer to the planned implant for the FG protocol than the other protocols. In addition, this superiority was shown for anterio...

Results : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

In relation to the maximum angle deviation (Fig. 8), the FG protocol had less deviation than the other protocols for anterior (2.42 ± 0.98°) and posterior (2.61 ± 1.23°) implants. The PG (4.65 ± 1.78°) and FH (4.79 ± 2.08°) protocols were similar for anterior implant placement, while the FH protocol seemed more accurate for posterior implants (4.77 ± 2.09°) than the ...

Results : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

In general, for all the variables, there was a tendency for the FG protocol to yield more accurate implant placement than other protocols (Table 1). In relation to vertical deviation, the PG protocol seemed to be associated with more errors. However, there was no significant difference in vertical deviation among all the protocols. Figure 3 indicates that the PG protocol was associated with deep...

Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

The vertical deviation was measured by calculating the discrepancy along the long axis of the planned implant at the center of the platform (Fig. 2a). In addition to the magnitude of the deviation, the direction of the error was determined. The horizontal deviations were measured at the neck and the apex of the planned implant. The angle deviation was computed by measuring the angle of the long a...

Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

For all the protocols, straight bone level Straumann dummy implants were planned. The anterior implants were 4.1 × 10 mm, while the posterior implants were 4.8 × 10 mm. The anterior implants were planned to be placed 2 mm subcrestal, while the posterior implants were planned to be placed 1 mm subcrestal. For the conventional protocols, the clinicians had access to physical intact Ni...

Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

The soft tissue silicone former was removed from the Nissin model to simulate bone anatomy. Subsequently, this model was duplicated with clear resin material mixed with barium sulfate and scanned by a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) machine to generate cross-sectional DICOM images. The DICOM images were imported to the implant planning software programs. For the FH protocol, the 2D DICOM ima...

Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

A total of 10 qualified clinicians with a minimum of 3 years of general practice experience were invited to participate in the study. The number of participants was similar to previously published studies [12, 19], and was confirmed by sample size calculation. A mean horizontal deviation of 1 mm and an expected standard deviation of 0.75 mm that were reported from earlier studies [13, 19] were ...

Background : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Despite all the advantages of sCAIP protocols, several studies reported that they are still prone to errors and complications [7,8,9, 17, 18]. The FG and PG protocols still require thorough planning and surgical understanding and skills [11]. For multiple implants and long-span edentulous ridges, guided surgery has the advantages of being more reliable, more comfortable for the patient, and more r...

Background : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Implant treatment is a growing field in dentistry, and many clinicians aim to increase their scope of practice by including such treatment. One of the main challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. It is the consensus that implant placement must be planned to achieve an acceptable position for an ideal restorative outcom...

Abstract : Accuracy of static computer-assisted im...

One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians...

Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribu...

Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distrib...

Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribu...

Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distrib...

Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal apex deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal apex deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribu...

Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distrib...

Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distrib...

Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of vertical deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of vertical deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants

Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measu...

Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measurement of vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations. b Three forms of horizontal deviation were measured: maximum, mesiodistal, and buccolingual directions Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measurement of vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations. b Three forms of horizontal deviation we...

Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases...

Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases of the experiment Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases of the experiment

Table 1 Summary of implant vertical, horizontal an...

 Vertical implant deviation  Anterior implantPosterior implantp values between anterior and posterior implants FGPGFHFGPGFHMean (mm)0.210.530.300.340.640.49FG = 0.07SD (mm)0.120.520.240.230.370.22PG = 0.27Maximum (mm)0.391.650.810.801.130.80FH = 0.05Minimum (mm)0.090.050.070.040.200.07p valuesAll groups = 0.12All groups = 0.08  Maximum horizontal implant neck deviation ...

About this article : Accuracy of static computer-a...

Abduo, J., Lau, D. Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols. Int J Implant Dent 6, 10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-0205-3 Download citation Received: 31 October 2019 Accepted: 21 January 2020 Published: 11 March 2020 DOI:...

Rights and permissions : Accuracy of static comput...

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were m...

Additional information : Accuracy of static comput...

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Ethics declarations : Accuracy of static computer-...

This study was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (1851406.1). The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were aware of the nature of the study and provided their consent prior to the commencement of the study. Not applicable Jaafar Abduo, and Douglas Lau declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information : Accuracy of static computer-a...

Associate Professor in Prosthodontics, Convenor of Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Dentistry (Implants), Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, 720 Swanston Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia Jaafar Abduo Periodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Douglas Lau You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar You can also search fo...

Funding : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

The implants, surgical kits, and guide sleeves were provided by Straumann Australia. This study has been funded by the Kernot Early Career Researcher Award. No financial income for conducting the study was received by the authors.

Acknowledgements : Accuracy of static computer-ass...

The authors would also like to thank Mr. Attila Gergely for his technical support in developing the simulated case and the input of the team of Digital Dental Network in designing the guides.

References : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Deeb GR, Allen RK, Hall VP, Whitley D 3rd, Laskin DM, Bencharit S. How accurate are implant surgical guides produced with desktop stereolithographic 3-dimentional printers? J Oral Maxillofac Surgery. 2017;75:2551–9. Horwitz J, Zuabi O, Machtei EE. Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1156–62...

References : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, Schutyser F, Boumans T. Accuracy of computer-guided surgery: a comparison of operator experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:407–13. Park SJ, Leesungbok R, Cui T, Lee SW, Ahn SJ. Reliability of a CAD/CAM surgical guide for implant placement: an in vitro comparison of surgeons' experience levels and implant sites. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:367–9. Marheine...

References : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Belser UC, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Taylor TD. Prosthetic management of the partially dentate patient with fixed implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:126–45. Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:43–61. Ramaglia L, Toti P, Sbordone...

Abbreviations : Accuracy of static computer-assist...

Three-dimensional Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing Cone beam computed tomography Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine Fully guided Freehand Pilot-guided Static computer-assisted implant placement Surface tessellation language

Availability of data and materials : Accuracy of s...

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conclusions : Accuracy of static computer-assisted...

Within the limitations of the present study, it can be hypothesized that apart from vertical deviation, the FG protocol is more accurate than the PG and FH protocols for all the evaluated variables in the hands of inexperienced clinicians. The PG and FH protocols were generally similar. The FG protocol did not seem to be influenced by the position of the placed implants, while the PG and FH protoc...

Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

For the majority of the evaluated variables, there was a tendency for the posterior implants to suffer from more deviation than anterior implants. This is in accordance with several published reports [5, 21, 22]. Interestingly, implants placed by the FG protocol seemed to be less vulnerable to inaccuracy by changing the implant sites, while the PG and FH protocols showed more horizontal and angle ...

Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

The superior accuracy and the less variation of the FG protocol is most likely related to the control of all the drilling steps and the implant placement via sequential use of precision sleeves. This eliminated the manual orientation and handling of the drills at any stage of drilling or implant placement. In accordance with these observations, Noharet et al. reported a better accuracy of the FG p...

Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

The overall outcome of this study indicates the superiority of the FG protocol in comparison to PG and FH protocols for placing single implants. With the exception of vertical deviation, this was obvious for horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations that were closer to the planned implant for the FG protocol than the other protocols. In addition, this superiority was shown for anterio...

Results : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

In relation to the maximum angle deviation (Fig. 8), the FG protocol had less deviation than the other protocols for anterior (2.42 ± 0.98°) and posterior (2.61 ± 1.23°) implants. The PG (4.65 ± 1.78°) and FH (4.79 ± 2.08°) protocols were similar for anterior implant placement, while the FH protocol seemed more accurate for posterior implants (4.77 ± 2.09°) than the ...

Results : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

In general, for all the variables, there was a tendency for the FG protocol to yield more accurate implant placement than other protocols (Table 1). In relation to vertical deviation, the PG protocol seemed to be associated with more errors. However, there was no significant difference in vertical deviation among all the protocols. Figure 3 indicates that the PG protocol was associated with deep...

Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

The vertical deviation was measured by calculating the discrepancy along the long axis of the planned implant at the center of the platform (Fig. 2a). In addition to the magnitude of the deviation, the direction of the error was determined. The horizontal deviations were measured at the neck and the apex of the planned implant. The angle deviation was computed by measuring the angle of the long a...

Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

For all the protocols, straight bone level Straumann dummy implants were planned. The anterior implants were 4.1 × 10 mm, while the posterior implants were 4.8 × 10 mm. The anterior implants were planned to be placed 2 mm subcrestal, while the posterior implants were planned to be placed 1 mm subcrestal. For the conventional protocols, the clinicians had access to physical intact Ni...

Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

The soft tissue silicone former was removed from the Nissin model to simulate bone anatomy. Subsequently, this model was duplicated with clear resin material mixed with barium sulfate and scanned by a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) machine to generate cross-sectional DICOM images. The DICOM images were imported to the implant planning software programs. For the FH protocol, the 2D DICOM ima...

Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted imp...

A total of 10 qualified clinicians with a minimum of 3 years of general practice experience were invited to participate in the study. The number of participants was similar to previously published studies [12, 19], and was confirmed by sample size calculation. A mean horizontal deviation of 1 mm and an expected standard deviation of 0.75 mm that were reported from earlier studies [13, 19] were ...

Background : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Despite all the advantages of sCAIP protocols, several studies reported that they are still prone to errors and complications [7,8,9, 17, 18]. The FG and PG protocols still require thorough planning and surgical understanding and skills [11]. For multiple implants and long-span edentulous ridges, guided surgery has the advantages of being more reliable, more comfortable for the patient, and more r...

Background : Accuracy of static computer-assisted ...

Implant treatment is a growing field in dentistry, and many clinicians aim to increase their scope of practice by including such treatment. One of the main challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. It is the consensus that implant placement must be planned to achieve an acceptable position for an ideal restorative outcom...

Abstract : Accuracy of static computer-assisted im...

One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians...

Figure 6. Von Mises stress distribution on bone

  Figure 6. Figure 6. a–d Von Mises stress distribution on bone. From a to d: L-M, ZL-M, L-V, and ZL-V respectively. The stress concentration occurred in the cortical bone around the neck of the implant. Groups L-M and ZL-M were quite similar and reduced stress

Figure 5. a–d Von Mises stress distribution on a...

Figure 5. a–d Von Mises stress distribution on abutment. From a to d: L-M, ZL-M, L-V, and ZL-V respectively. Von Mises stresses were relatively similar and concentrated at the coronal part of the abutment in all groups Figure 5. a–d Von Mises stress distribution on abutment. From a to d: L-M, ZL-M, L-V, and ZL-V respectively. Von Mises stresses were relatively similar and concentrated ...

Figure 4. a–d Von Mises stress distribution on i...

Figure 4. a–d Von Mises stress distribution on implant. From a to d: L-M, ZL-M, L-V, and ZL-V respectively Figure 4. a–d Von Mises stress distribution on implant. From a to d: L-M, ZL-M, L-V, and ZL-V respectively

Figure 3. a–d Maximum principal stress distribut...

Figure 3. a–d Maximum principal stress distribution on crown restoration. From a to d: L-M, ZL-M, L-V, and ZL-V respectively Figure 3. a–d Maximum principal stress distribution on crown restoration. From a to d: L-M, ZL-M, L-V, and ZL-V respectively

Figure 2. The graph of the interaction of the mate...

Figure 2. The graph of the interaction of the materials and restoration design

Table 4 Descriptive statistical analysis of the gr...

Group N Mean (N) Standard deviation Minimum Maximum L-M 12 2891.88a 410.12 2079.74 3486.96 L-V 12 2077.37bc 356.59 1220.96 2493.39 ZL-M 12 1750.28c 314.96 1084.36 2163.95 ZL-V 12 2202.55b 503.14 1292.20 2912.81

Table 3 The properties of the materials used in FE...

Material Young’s modulus (GPa) Poisson ratio Reference E.max CAD 95 0.20 [1] Vita Suprinity 65 0.23 [2] Vita VM 11 65 0.23 * E.max Ceram 64 0.23 [4] Implant and abutment 114 0.34 [5] Cortical bone 13.7 0.3 [5] Spongious bone 1 0.3 [5]

Figure 1. Crown restoration design

Figure 1. Crown restoration design

Table 2 The materials in the groups

Groups N Materials L-M 12 IPS e-max CADIPS e.max CAD glaze L-V 12 IPS e-max CADe.max Ceram DentinIPS e.max Ceram Glaze ZL-M 12 Vita SuprinityVita Akzent Plus ZL-V 12 Vita SuprinityVM-11Vita Akzent Plus

Table 1 The materials used in the study

Material Chemical composition (%) Coefficient of thermal expansion (10−6 K−1) Flexural strength (MPa) Manufacturer IPS e.max CAD; lithium disilicate glass ceramic (LDS) SiO2 (57–80), Li2O (11–19), K2O (0–13), P2O5 (0–11), ZrO2 (0–8), ZnO (0–8), Al2O3 (0–5), MgO (0–5), coloring oxides (0–8) 10.2 360 Ivoclar Vivadent IPS e.max Ceram; low-fusing nan...

Conclusion : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured im...

Conclusions Within the limitation of the present study, it can be concluded that the restoration design affected the failure load of ceramics. Monolithic design had a statistically significant effect on the failure load of two different ceramics (LDS > ZLS). Veneer application had opposite effects on two different ceramics which increased the failure load of ZLS and reduced it for LDS witho...

Discussion : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured im...

Zheng et al. compared the stress distribution of the same veneering ceramic on different cores and concluded that the zirconia core was clearly different from other materials with higher tensile stresses at the veneer core interface because the increasing differences between the elasticity modulus of the core and the veneer transmitted higher stress concentrations to the cores. Con...

Discussion : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured im...

Veneer application provided additional strength to the ZLS crowns in contrast to the LDS crowns. The higher failure load of the veneered ZLS crowns (2202.55 N; group L-V 2077.37 N) may be associated with the higher flexural strength of the veneering porcelain VM-11 (100 MPa; emax Ceram 90 MPa). These veneered groups had a statistically significant difference from the monoli...

Discussion : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured im...

Similar results were presented in a study of Traini et al. as it was concluded that ZLS was comparable to that of existing zirconia-based ceramics and was suitable for oral function even in the posterior regions. In the literature, there have been few studies on this ceramic and a limited number of them include the failure load of the material. In one of these studi...

Discussion : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured im...

In literature, it has been stated that the failure load of LDS crowns was higher than veneered zirconia and could be comparable with metal ceramic systems. Doğan et al. evaluated the fracture strength of different CAD/CAM-manufactured crowns and concluded that the monolithic LDS crowns had the highest fracture resistance. Present study confirmed as monolithic LDS crowns demonstrated so satisfying...

Discussion : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured im...

Discussion Implant-supported restorations have been accepted as an alternative treatment for the rehabilitation of edentulous spaces. Despite the high success rates, implant failures are inevitable and classified as early or late implant failures. Late implant failures are observed after prosthetic restoration which is primarily related to biomechanical complications. Since occlusal loads are t...

Results : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured impla...

Results Descriptive analysis (mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum, maximum) of the groups is presented in Table 4. Group L-M exhibited the highest failure load values (2891.88 N ± 410.12 N), and the lowest values were observed in group ZL-M (1750.28 N ± 314.96 N). Two-way ANOVA indicated a statistically significant difference between materials and veneering technique (p = 0.00 < ...

Method : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implan...

  Statistical analysis The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 24.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test was used to evaluate whether the data distribution of the groups was normal. The homogeneity of the variances was analyzed by Levene’s test. Since test results indicated that data distribution of the groups was normal and the variances were homogenous,...

Method : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implan...

All crowns were subjected to a combination firing that included crystallization and glaze firing according to each manufacturer’s guidelines in the ceramic furnace (Vita Vacumat 6000 M, Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany). For veneered restorations, the design mode was changed to “split,” and the core was constructed in 0.6-mm thickness. In group L-V (n = 12), e.max ...

Method : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implan...

Methods Preparation of test groups This study tested the current glass ceramic ZLS by comparing LDS with monolithic and conventional veneering techniques in implant-supported crowns: group L-M: lithium disilicate ceramic (monolithic), group L-V: lithium disilicate ceramic (conventional veneering), group ZL-M: zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (monolithic), group ZL-V: zirconia-reinf...

Background : Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured im...

Background Implants have been successfully used to replace missing teeth for many years. Notwithstanding the high success rates, complications such as screw loosening and/or fracture, prosthesis fracture, and even implant fracture are inevitable. The reasons of the complication may be related to decreased proprioception and low tactile sensitivity which makes implant-supported crowns more susc...

Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-support...

Abstract Background Present study compared the failure load of CAD/CAM-manufactured implant-supported crowns and the stress distribution on the prosthesis-implant-bone complex with different restoration techniques. Methods The materials were divided into four groups: group L-M: lithium disilicate ceramic (LDS, monolithic), group L-V: LDS ceramic (veneering), group ZL-M: zirconia-reinforced l...