Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the currently published literatures investigating the accuracy of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing removable partial denture (CAD-CAM RPD) framework with different manufacturing techniques and methods. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search for literatures was conducted in PubMed database using specific keywords with the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) question, “Is there a difference in accuracy of RPD frameworks manufactured using digital workflow according to the manufacturing process and methods?” Results: A total of 7 articles were selected. Two studies compared intraoral scanning and laboratory scanning for RPD frameworks and had heterogenous results. In the studies using different manufacturing process, RPD frameworks had clinically acceptable accuracy in both subtractive and additive manufacturing. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-milled RPD frameworks showed higher fit accuracy than traditionally casted or 3D printed RPDs. Direct milling method showed a higher accuracy than indirect milling method. However, in rapid prototyping, indirect method showed higher accuracy than direct method. Conclusion The RPD frameworks fabricated using CAD-CAM technology showed a clinically acceptable level of accuracy regardless of manufacturing process or techniques. Consistent results have not been reported regarding the digital impression methods, which were intra oral scanning or laboratory scanning, and further studies are needed.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the currently published literatures investigating the accuracy of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing removable partial denture (CAD-CAM RPD) framework with different manufacturing techniques and methods. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search for literatures was conducted in PubMed database using specific keywords with the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) question, “Is there a difference in accuracy of RPD frameworks manufactured using digital workflow according to the manufacturing process and methods?” Results: A total of 7 articles were selected. Two studies compared intraoral scanning and laboratory scanning for RPD frameworks and had heterogenous results. In the studies using different manufacturing process, RPD frameworks had clinically acceptable accuracy in both subtractive and additive manufacturing. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-milled RPD frameworks showed higher fit accuracy than traditionally casted or 3D printed RPDs. Direct milling method showed a higher accuracy than indirect milling method. However, in rapid prototyping, indirect method showed higher accuracy than direct method. Conclusion The RPD frameworks fabricated using CAD-CAM technology showed a clinically acceptable level of accuracy regardless of manufacturing process or techniques. Consistent results have not been reported regarding the digital impression methods, which were intra oral scanning or laboratory scanning, and further studies are needed.

PURPOSE: . To compare the clinical outcomes of two types of implant restoration for posterior edentulous area, 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants and 3 implant-supported splinted crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . The data included 127 implant-supported fixed restorations in 85 patients: 37 restorations of 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants (2-IB), 37 restorations of 3 implantsupported splinted crowns (3-IC), and 53 single restorations (S) as controls.Peri-implantitis and mechanical complications that occurred for 14 years were analyzed by multivariable Cox regression model. Kaplan-Meier curves and the multivariable Cox regression model were used to analyze the success and survival of implants. RESULTS: . Peri-implantitis occurred in 28.4% of 2-IB group, 37.8% of 3-IC group, and 28.3% of S control group with no significant difference. According to the implant position, middle implants (P2) of the 3-IC group had the highest risk of peri-implantitis. The 3-IC group showed a lower mechanical complication rate (7.2%) than the 2-IB (16.2%) and S control group (20.8%). The cumulative success rate was 52.8% in S (control) group, 62.2% in 2-IB group, and 60.4% in 3-IC group. The cumulative survival rate was 98.1% in S (control) group, 98.6% in 2-IB group, and 95.5% in 3-IC group. There was no significant difference in the success and survival rate according to the restoration type. CONCLUSION . The restoration type was not associated with the success and survival of implants. The risk of mechanical complications was reduced in 3 implant-supported splinted crowns. However, the middle implants of the 3 implant-supported splinted crowns had a higher risk of peri-implantitis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture of implant component behavior of external and internal type of implants to suggest directions for successful implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from the clinical records of all patients who received WARANTEC implants at Seoul National University Dental Hospital from February 2002 to January 2014 for 12 years. Total number of implants was 1,289 and an average of 3.2 implants was installed per patient. Information about abutment connection type, implant locations, platform sizes was collected with presence of implant component fractures and their managements. SPSS statistics software (version 24.0, IBM) was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Overall fracture was significantly more frequent in internal type. The most frequently fractured component was abutment in internal type implants, and screw fracture occurred most frequently in external type. Analyzing by fractured components, screw fracture was the most frequent in the maxillary anterior region and the most abutment fracture occurred in the maxillary posterior region and screw fractures occurred more frequently in NP (narrow platform) and abutment fractures occurred more frequently in RP (regular platform). CONCLUSION: In external type, screw fracture occurred most frequently, especially in the maxillary anterior region, and in internal type, abutment fracture occurred frequently in the posterior region. placement of an external type implant rather than an internal type is recommended for the posterior region where abutment fractures frequently occur.
Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Seoul

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) abutment and prefabricated abutment in Morse taper internal connection type implants after cyclic loading.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted with internal type implants of two different manufacturers (Group Os, De). Fourteen assemblies were prepared for each manufacturer group and divided into 2 groups (n=7): prefabricated abutments (Os-P, De-P) and CAD/CAM abutments (Os-C, De-C). The amount of axial displacement and the removal torque values (RTVs) were measured before and after cyclic loading (10⁶ cycles, 3 Hz with 150 N), and the tensile removal force to dislodge the abutments was measured after cyclic loading. A repeated measures ANOVA and a pattern analysis based on the logarithmic regression model were conducted to evaluate the effect of cyclic loading on the axial displacement. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney test was conducted for comparison of RTV reduction% and tensile removal forces.RESULTS: There was no significant difference between CAD/CAM abutments and prefabricated abutments in axial displacement and tensile removal force; however, significantly greater RTV reduction% after cyclic loading was observed in CAD/CAM abutments. The correlation among the axial displacement, the RTV, and the tensile removal force was not significant.CONCLUSION: The use of CAD/CAM abutment did not significantly affect the amount of axial displacement and tensile removal force, but presented a significantly greater removal torque reduction% than prefabricated abutments. The connection stability due to the friction at the abutment-implant interface of CAD/CAM abutments may not be different from prefabricated abutment.
Friction ; Torque