Marginal gap of three-dimensional printed full-arch frameworks supported by all-on-four and all-on-six implant designs
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal gap of full-arch frameworks (FAFs) supported by all-on-four and all-on-six implant designs, fabricated using different manufacturing technologies. Settings and Design: This was an in vitro study. Materials and Methods: Fifteen titanium FAFs wer...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jips.jips_40_25 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Aim:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal gap of full-arch frameworks (FAFs) supported by all-on-four and all-on-six implant designs, fabricated using different manufacturing technologies.
Settings and Design:
This was an in vitro study.
Materials and Methods:
Fifteen titanium FAFs were fabricated using milling and three-dimensional printing techniques: selective laser melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM) (n = 5/group). The marginal gap between the framework and abutment was measured using a microscope with 1 μm accuracy. Measurements were taken three times by a calibrated examiner (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.996; P < 0.001) at the buccal and lingual interface between the abutment and the framework.
Statistical Analysis Used:
A two-way ANOVA was applied to assess the effects of implant design and manufacturing technology (α = 0.05).
Results:
When comparing implant designs, the all-on-four group (milling [P = 0.002] and SLM [P = 0.001]) exhibited lower marginal gap values than the all-on-six group. No statistically significant difference was observed between the EBM frameworks in both designs. In the all-on-four group, milling resulted in lower marginal gap values than SLM (P = 0.021) and EBM (P = 0.001), while no statistically significant difference was found between the SLM and EBM groups (P = 0.163). For the all-on-six framework design, the milling (P = 0.008) and EBM (P < .001) groups exhibited lower marginal gap values than the SLM group. No statistically significant difference was detected between the milling and EBM groups (P = 0.160).
Conclusion:
Milled frameworks should be the preferred choice for rehabilitations using the all-on-four implant design. For the all-on-six design, both milled and EBM frameworks may be indicated. The marginal gap values observed for all FAFs designs and manufacturing technologies can be considered clinically acceptable. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0972-4052 1998-4057 |