ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2022
The effect of the digital manufacturing technique of cantilevered implant-supported frameworks on abutment screw preload.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of Digital Manufacturing and Abutment Design on Full-Arch Implant Prostheses-An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the misfit and screw preload at the implant abutment connection of implant supported fixed dental prosthesis with cantilever (ICFDP) manufactured using different digital manufacturing techniques and to compare the screw preload before and after cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND
methodsMandibular jaw model with four intra-foraminal implants was scanned using digital scanner. Stereolithography file was used to design a framework with nonengaging (NE) abutments and 10 mm cantilever distal to one terminal implant. Five frameworks were constructed using combined digital-conventional techniques (CAD-cast), and five frameworks were constructed using three-dimensional printing (3DP). Additional CAD-cast framework was constructed in a way that ensures passive fit (PF) to use as control. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) measured the implant abutment connection misfit. Sixty screws were used on the corresponding frameworks. Screws were torqued and pre-cyclic loading reverse torque value (RTV) was recorded. Frameworks were subjected to 200,000 loading cycles with a loading point 9 mm from the center of terminal implants adjacent to the cantilever and post-cyclic loading RTVs were recorded.
resultsMicroscopic readings showed significant differences between frameworks. PF demonstrated the lowest measurements of 16.04 (2.6) µm while CAD-cast demonstrated the highest measurements of 29.2 (3.1) µm. In all groups, RTVs were significantly lower than the applied torque. Post-cyclic loading RTV was significantly lower than pre-cyclic loading RTV in PF and 3DP frameworks. Differences in RTVs between the three manufacturing techniques were insignificant.
conclusionAlthough CAD-cast and three-dimensionally printed (3DP) both produce frameworks with clinically acceptable misfit, 3DP might not be the technique of choice for maintaining screw's preload stability under an aggressive loading situation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.