STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Major objective in making on implant-supported prosthesis is the production of superstructure that exhibits a passive fit when connected to multiple abutments. One requirement to ensure passive fit is to make an accurate impression. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of master cast fabricated by using different impression methods at the different impression levels. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The master model used in this study was resin block having four implant analogs. Impression method studied were 1) direct method on fixture level (Group FIX-D), 2) indirect method on fixture level(Group FIX-I), 3) modified indirect method on fixture level(Group FIXM) 4) direct method on abutment level(Group AB-D) and 5) indirect method on abutment level(Group AB-I). Each of the five groups took 10 impressions. Fifty impressions were made for master cast by using Impregum F. impression material loaded on individual tray. Three dimensional measuring microscope was used to measure the inter-implant distance. Error rate of each inter-implant distance were calculated and evaluated. RESULTS: The results were as follows. 1. Group FIX exhibited higher accuracy than group AB. 2. In group FIX, modified indirect method showed the highest accuracy, while indirect method showed the lowest accuracy. In group Ab, indirect method showed the higher accuracy than direct method. 3. Group FIX showed larger horizontal error than group AB. But, group AB showed the larger vertical error than group FIX. 4. Group Fix-M showed smallest vertical and horizontal error. CONCLUSION: An impression method have more effect on accuracy of master model than an impression level. A modified indirect method showed smallest vertical and horizontal error.
Prostheses and Implants*

Accuracy is the most important thing in implant prosthesis, for this reason it is essential procedure to check the accuracy of impression taking. However, impression material has its own error and the error occurs in model-making procedure. As an alternative way to this, using intraoral scanner can be suggested and many studies were issued reporting that there's no statistically significant difference in accuracy between intraoral scanner and conventional impression. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to report the process of making of implant prosthesis using intraoral scanner, which is more convenient, fast, accurate compared with conventional method.
Prostheses and Implants*

With the recent progress of digital technology, the computer guided surgery utilizing a guide template in the placement of implant has been actively performed, and the method employing the intraoral scanner at the implant prosthesis introduced. Fabrication method of the guide template can be largely classified into design-related rapid prototyping (RP) system and vector milling system, and each of the method has its own weakness in the clinical application despite of excellent accuracy. Thus, in this case study, a working model was fabricated by the wax RP technology using images acquired by CBCT and an intraoral scanner, and the metal bushing was picked up with orthodontic resin cast upon the wax model. Using this method, a surgical guide template was fabricated and used in surgery. From this, we could obtain a satisfactory outcome clinically in the implant placement and the fabrication of the final prostheses and thus report this case herein.
Prostheses and Implants

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of master cast fabricated by using different impression methods at the different impression levels. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The master model used in this study was resin block having four implant analogs. Impression method studied were 1) direct method on fixture level (Group FIX-D), 2) Indirect method on fixture level(Group FIX-I), 3) Modified indirect method on fixture level(Group FIX-M), 4) Direct method on abutment level(Group AB-D) and 5) Indirect method on abutment level(Group AB-I). Each of the five groups took 10 impressions. Fifty impressions were made for master cast by using Impregum F. impression material loaded on individual tray. Three dimensional measuring microscope was used to measure the inter-implant distance. Error rate of each inter-implant distance were calculated and evaluated. RESULTS: The results were as follows. 1. Group FIX exhibited higher accuracy than group AB. 2. In group FIX, modified indirect method showed the highest accuracy, while indirect method showed the lowest accuracy. In group Ab, indirect method showed the higher accuracy than direct method. 3. Group FIX showed larger horizontal error than group AB. But, group AB showed the larger vertical error than group FIX. 4. Group Fix-M showed smallest vertical and horizontal error.
Prostheses and Implants*

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of master cast fabricated by using different impression methods at the different impression levels. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The master model used in this study was resin block having four implant analogs. Impression method studied were 1) direct method on fixture level (Group FIX-D), 2) Indirect method on fixture level(Group FIX-I), 3) Modified indirect method on fixture level(Group FIX-M), 4) Direct method on abutment level(Group AB-D) and 5) Indirect method on abutment level(Group AB-I). Each of the five groups took 10 impressions. Fifty impressions were made for master cast by using Impregum F. impression material loaded on individual tray. Three dimensional measuring microscope was used to measure the inter-implant distance. Error rate of each inter-implant distance were calculated and evaluated. RESULTS: The results were as follows. 1. Group FIX exhibited higher accuracy than group AB. 2. In group FIX, modified indirect method showed the highest accuracy, while indirect method showed the lowest accuracy. In group Ab, indirect method showed the higher accuracy than direct method. 3. Group FIX showed larger horizontal error than group AB. But, group AB showed the larger vertical error than group FIX. 4. Group Fix-M showed smallest vertical and horizontal error.
Prostheses and Implants*

No abstract available.
Prostheses and Implants*

No abstract available.
Prostheses and Implants*

No abstract available.
Prostheses and Implants*

PURPOSE: Grinding with less stress on 3Y-TZP through proper selection of methods and instruments can lead to a long-term success of prosthesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the phase transformation and physical properties after zirconia surface grinding with 3 different grinding burs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty disc-shaped zirconia specimens were fabricated. Each Ten specimens were ground with AllCeramic SuperMax (NTI, Kahla, Germany), Dura-Green DIA (Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan), and Dura-Green (Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan). Ten specimens were not ground and used as a control group. After the specimen grinding, XRD analysis, surface roughness test, FE-SEM imaging, and biaxial flexural strength test were performed. RESULTS: After surface grinding, small amount of monoclinic phase in all experimental groups was observed. The phase change was higher in specimens, which were ground with Dura-Green DIA and AllCeramic SuperMax burs. The roughness of surfaces increased in specimens, which were ground with Dura-Green DIA and AllCeramic SuperMax burs than control groups and ground with Dura-Green. All experimental groups showed lower flexural strength than control group, but there was no statistically significant difference between control group and ground with Dura-Green DIA and AllCeramic SuperMax burs. The specimens, which were ground with Dura- Green showed the lowest strength. CONCLUSION: The use of dedicated zirconia-specific grinding burs such as Dura-Green DIA and AllCeramic SuperMax burs decreases the grinding time and did not significantly affect the flexural strength of zirconia, and therefore, they may be recommended. However, a fine polishing process should be accompanied to reduce the surface roughness after grinding.
Prostheses and Implants

In this study, the Periotest value was measured with Periotest to evaluate precision fit of the 2-unit and 3-unit implant-supported prosthesis by modifying the size and location of ill-fitted conditions. The 2-unit prosthesis was fabricated with the right implant fitted incorrectly and the 3-unit prosthesis with the right and center implant fitted incorrectly. To evaluate the effects of the ill-fitted sizes, 4 groups were divided.:The control group being the accurately fabricated sample group fitted properly. Group 1 was constructed with 40micrometer ill-fitted conditions, group 2 with 70micrometer and group 3 with 100micrometer ill-fitted conditions. The Periotest value was measured at each implant site after tightening 10Ncm. The result was follows: 1. The PTV on the ill-fitted area in the 2-unit implant-supported prosthesis increased as the ill-fitted conditions increased. There was a statistically significant difference among groups(p<0.05). In the same ill-fitted sample, the PTV depending on the measured location demonstrated a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). 2. The PTV on the ill-fitted area of the 3-unit implant-supported with an ill-fitted condition in the right implant increased as the ill-fitted conditions increased. There was a significant difference among groups (p<0.05). In the same ill-fitted sample, the PTV depending on the measured location demonstrated a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). 3. In the 3-unit implant-supported prosthesis with ill fitting conditions in the center implant, the PTV on the ill-fitted area demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the control group, group 1 and group 2 (p<0.05). In the same ill-fitted sample, the PTV depending on the measured location demonstrated significant difference between the gap side and the adjacent side with over 70micrometer ill-fitted conditions (p<0.05). The results suggest that Periotest is a valuable objective method for evaluating the precision fit of an implant superstructure.
Prostheses and Implants*