Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 29, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Implant-Abutment Discrepancy Before and After Acrylic Resin Veneering of Complete-Arch Titanium Frameworks
Marta Revilla-León1,2,3, Javier Pérez-López4, Abdul B Barmak5
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Purpose:
To assess the implant-abutment discrepancy of complete-arch frameworks manufactured using milling and additive electron beam melting (EBM) technologies, before and after acrylic resin veneering application.
Materials And Methods:
A definitive implant cast with six implant replicas was digitized using a laboratory scanner. A software program was used to design an implant-supported framework which was manufactured using milling (M group) and EBM (EBM group) technologies (n = 10). In the M group, titanium milled specimens were fabricated. In the EBM group, titanium EBM specimens were obtained. A coordinate measurement machine (CMM) was used to assess the implant-abutment discrepancy at x-, y-, and z-axed between the specimens and the implant-abutment replicas of the definitive cast. The implant replicas positioned on the lateral incisor positions were not able to be assessed. The 3D gap discrepancy was calculated: . Acrylic resin veneering procedures were finished and the same CMM measurements were completed. Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05).
Results:
The manufacturing method (df = 1, F = 7.00, p = 0.009) and implant position (df = 3, F = 129.82, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the x-axis discrepancy. The veneering procedures (df = 1, F = 21.55, p < 0.001) and implant position (df = 3, F = 95.42, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the y-axis discrepancy. The manufacturing method (df = 1, F = 11.79, p = 0.001) was a significant predictor of the z-axis discrepancy. Lastly, the manufacturing method (df = 1, F = 5.11, p = 0.026), implant position (df = 3, F = 11.36, p < 0.001), and veneering procedures (df = 1, F = 41.56, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the 3D gap discrepancy in which the manufacturing method explains the 2.37% of variation in the 3D gap discrepancy, the implant position explains the 15.82% of variation in the 3D gap discrepancy, and veneering procedures explain the 19.29% of variation in the 3D gap discrepancy results.
Conclusions:
The manufacturing methods, veneering procedures, and implant position influenced the linear implant-abutment discrepancy. The milled technique tested obtained lower linear implant-abutment discrepancy compared with the EBM method evaluated. The acrylic resin veneering procedures increased the implant-abutment discrepancy.
