Objective: To compare the precision of fit of long-span vs. short-span implant-supported screw-retained fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) made from computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufactured (CAD/CAM) titanium and veneered with ceramic. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the vertical microgap between long-span and short-span FDPs.
Materials and methods: CAD/CAM titanium frameworks for an implant-supported maxillary FDP on implants with a flat platform were fabricated on one single master cast. Group A consisted of six 10-unit FDPs connected to six implants (FDI positions 15, 13, 11, 21, 23, 25) and group B of six 5-unit FDPs (three implants, FDI positions 21, 23, 25). The CAD/CAM system from Biodenta Swiss AG (Berneck, Switzerland) was used for digitizing (laser scanner) the master cast and anatomical CAD of each framework separately. The frameworks were milled (CAM) from a titanium grade V monobloc and veneered with porcelain. Median vertical distance between implant and FDP platforms from the non-tightened implants (one-screw test on implant 25) was calculated from mesial, buccal, and distal scanning electron microscope measurements.
Results: All measurements showed values <40 μm. Total median vertical microgaps were 23 μm (range 2-38 μm) for group A and 7 μm (4-24 μm) for group B. The difference between the groups was statistically significant at implant 21 (P = 0.002; 97.5% CI -27.3 to -4.9) and insignificant at implant 23 (P = 0.093; -3.9 to 1.0).
Conclusions: CAD/CAM fabrication including laboratory scanning and porcelain firing was highly precise and reproducible for all long- and short-span FDPs. While all FDPs showed clinically acceptable values, the short-span FDPs were statistically more precise at the 5-unit span distance.
Keywords: CAD/CAM; fixed dental prosthesis FDP; framework misfit; implant-supported; long-span; passive fit; short-span.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.