Avaliação do desajuste horizontal em infraestruturas para próteses totais implantossuportadas obtidas com o uso de moldagem digital e convencional

Artigo compara o desajuste marginal horizontal de infraestruturas para próteses totais implantossuportadas obtidas por moldagem convencional e digital.

AUTORES

Ana Carolina Nascimento Freitas
Graduanda em Odontologia – UFMG.
Orcid: 0000-0002-8687-7588.

Samanta Neroly Vinagre Vieira
Cirurgiã-dentista – UFMG.
Orcid: 0000-0003-2399-5605.

Matheus Franco Lourenço
Cirurgião-dentista – UFMG; Mestrando em Prótese Dentária – SLMandic.
Orcid: 0000-0001-9210-7232.

Ênio Lacerda Vilaça
Professor associado doutor do Depto. de Odontologia Restauradora – UFMG.
Orcid: 0000-0001-6706-0866.

Guilherme Costa Carvalho Silva
Professor adjunto doutor do Depto. de Odontologia Restauradora – UFMG.
Orcid: 0000-0001-5123-1333.

RESUMO

Objetivo: comparar o desajuste marginal horizontal de infraestruturas para próteses totais implantossuportadas obtidas por moldagem convencional e digital. Material e métodos: um modelo mestre mandibular com quatro implantes (4,1 mm x 10 mm) foi moldado cinco vezes com silicone de adição e cinco vezes varrido por um scanner intraoral. Os modelos de gesso obtidos pela moldagem convencional foram escaneados em um dispositivo de bancada para obtenção de modelos virtuais. Sobre os modelos gerados, foram desenhadas virtualmente (CAD) infraestruturas parafusadas (n=5) que posteriormente foram fresadas (CAM) em óxido de zircônio. As infraestruturas geradas pela moldagem digital (GD) e convencional (GC) foram parafusadas ao modelo mestre, inicialmente com um parafuso (GD1 e GC1) e posteriormente com quatro parafusos (GD4 e GC4). Os desajustes horizontais foram analisados sob MEV (em micrômetros) e comparações foram realizadas com o teste Anova (nível de significância: 5%). Resultados: não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas no desajuste entre as infraestruturas geradas pela moldagem convencional e digital (GC1 x GD1: F=0,0399; p=0,08403); (GC4 x GD4: F=0,2236; p=0,6519); (GD1 x GD4: F=0,3762; p=0,5612); (GC1 x GC4: F=1,6802; p=0,3762). Conclusão: ambas as técnicas de moldagem produziram infraestruturas com adaptação horizontal satisfatória, independentemente se apertadas com um ou quatro parafusos.

Palavras-chave – CAD/CAM; Prótese suportada por implantes; Óxido de zircônio; Moldagem; Desajuste marginal.

ABSTRACT

Objective: to evaluate the quality of fit of frameworks generated by conventional and digital impressions. Material and methods: an edentulous master model containing 4 dental implants (4.1 x 10 mm) was fabricated. Then, dental impressions were made 5 times in the conventional way and using an intraoral scanner. The plaster models obtained by conventional impressions were scanned on a bench laboratory device to generate virtual digital models. Screwed frameworks (n=5) were designed (CAD) and then milled (CAM) in zirconium oxide (ZrO2). The frameworks generated by conventional (GC) and digital (GD) impressions were screwed to the master model (10 Ncm), initially with 1 (GC1 and GD1) and later with 4 screws (GC4 and GD4). Margin fit was analyzed under SEM (in micrometers) and compared with the Anova test (5% significance level). Results: there were no statistically significant differences between groups (GC1 x GD1: F=0,0399; p=0,08403); (GC4 x GD4: F=0,2236; p=0,6519); (GD1 x GD4: F=0,3762; p=0,5612); (GC1 x GC4: F=1,6802; p=0,3762). Conclusion: both impression techniques produced ZrO2 frameworks with satisfactory fit, regardless of whether screwed with 1 or 4 screws.

Key words – CAD/CAM; Implant-supported prostheses; Zirconium oxide; Dental impression; Margin fit.

Recebido em set/2021
Aprovado em out/2021

Referências

Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Larsson C. Retrospective evaluation of implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prostheses after a mean follow-up of 10 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31(7):634-45.

Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(suppl.6):22-38.

Wittneben JG, Buser D, Salvi GE, Burgin W, Hicklin S, Bragger U. Complication and failure rates with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and single crowns: a 10-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res 2014;16(3):356-64.

Francetti L, Cavalli N, Taschieri S, Corbella S. Ten years follow-up retrospective study on implant survival rates and prevalence of peri-implantitis in implant-supported full-arch rehabilitations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30(3):252-60.

Abduo J, Judge RB. Implications of implant framework misfit: a systematic review of biomechanical sequelae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(3):608-21.

Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, Pow EHN. Implant framework misfit: a systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2021;23(2):244-58.

Karl M, Taylor TD, Wichmann MG, Heckmann SM. In vivo stress behavior in cemented and screw-retained five-unit implant FPDs. J Prosthodont 2006;15(1):20-4.

Hoods-Moonsammy VJ, Owen P, Howes DG. A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2014;27(5):433-8.

Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(4):836-45.

Andrade PCC, Pinto JRR, Miranda ME. Avaliação da influência de diferentes técnicas de moldagem na desadaptação de infraestrutura em implantes múltiplos angulados. ImplantNews 2012;9(2):263-70.

Nadin MA, Nadin PS, Miranda ME, Muzilli CA, Teixeira ML. Avaliação da desadaptação vertical de cilindros protéticos a pilares esteticone variando a técnica de moldagem e inclinação dos implantes. ImplantNews 2010;7(3a):161-6.

Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen YW, Natto Z et al. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont 2020;29(4):281-6.

Giachetti L, Sarti C, Cinelli F, Russo DS. Accuracy of digital impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review of clinical studies. Int J Prosthodont 2020;33(2):192-201.

Al-Meraikhi H, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy E, Brantley W, Johnson WM. In vitro fit of CAD-CAM complete arch screw-retained titanium and zirconia implant prostheses fabricated on 4 implants. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(3):409-16.

Karl M, Graef F, Schubinski P, Taylor T. Effect of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Quintessence Int 2012;43(7):555-62.

Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(6):715-9.

Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flügge T, Fokas G, Tahmaseb A, Bechelli D et al. Group 5 ITI consensus report: digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(suppl.16):436-42.

Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(suppl.16):374-92.

Mühlemann S, Kraus RD, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29(suppl.18):184-95.

Joda T, Brägger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(12):1430-5.

Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(1):111-5.

Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(10):1113-8.

Lee SJ, Macarthur RX 4th, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110(5):420-3.

Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(4):792-9.

Uribarri A, Bilbao-Uriarte E, Segurola A, Ugarte D, Verdugo F. Marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM frameworks in multiple implant-supported restorations: scanning and milling error analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21(5):1062-72.

Canullo L, Colombo M, Menini M, Sorge P, Pesce P. Trueness of intraoral scanners sonsidering operator experience and three different implant scenarios: a preliminary report. Int J Prosthodont 2021;34(2):250-3.

Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: a literature review. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64(2):109-13.

Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C et al. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J Prosthodontic Res 2019;63(4):396-403.

Pereira ALC, Medeiros VR, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2020,S0022-3913(20)30472-8.

Abdel-Azim T, Zandinejad A, Elathamna E, Lin W, Morton D. The influence of digital fabrication options on the accuracy of dental implant-based single units and complete-arch frameworks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(6):1281-8.

Wulfman C, Naveau A, Rignon-Bret C. Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124(2):161-7.

Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62(4):405-8.