PURPOSE: . This study aimed to evaluate the effects of fatigue and misfit on the reverse torque, load-bearing capacity, and failure modes of cemented and screwretained two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: . Eighty CAD-CAM zirconia frameworks with porcelain veneering were assigned to three groups based on engaging (E) and non-engaging (N) abutment configurations: N-N, N-E, and E-E. Misfit scenarios included a control cast and 100 μm horizontal or vertical misfits. Frameworks were mounted on implants as screw-retained or cement-retained 3-unit FDPs, forming seven test groups and one control group (n = 10). Reverse torque was measured before and after thermomechanical cycling, followed by maximum failure load (Fmax) testing and failure mode analysis. Fmax was evaluated using two-way ANOVA, and reverse torque using mixed-effects ANOVA accounting for engagement, misfit, and implant position (α = 0.05). RESULTS: . No significant differences in Fmax were observed across zirconia specimen groups or engagement configurations under various misfit conditions (P > .05). Engagement configuration did not significantly impact fracture strength or reverse torque (P = .421). A significant difference was found in the horizontal misfit group compared to controls (P < .001). Reverse torque values differed between distal (13.5 ± 0.5 Ncm) and mesial implants (18.6± 0.5 Ncm) (P = .000), suggesting distal implants may be more prone to preload loss and mechanical issues. CONCLUSION . The engagement configuration of implants did not significantly affect reverse torque, fracture strength, or failure modes of cemented and screw-retained restorations, although horizontal misfit reduced load-bearing capacity.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.