Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Device trueness in passivity and misfit of CAD-CAM frameworks: Conventional versus printed casts
Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira1, Jéssica Marcela de Luna Gomes2, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos3
1Postgraduate student, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Lagoa Nova, Natal, RN, Brazil.
Statement Of Problem:
Obtaining a passive and well-adapted framework is challenging when intraoral scanning edentulous arches with multiple implants. The trueness of the printed casts is unclear.
Purpose:
The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the trueness of frameworks made from conventional and printed casts regarding clinical passivity and misfit.
Material And Methods:
Ten participants with complete mandibular fixed implant-supported interim prostheses retained by 4 implants were included. Each participant had a conventional impression and a digital scan made. The digital scan was made using an innovative device. Both conventional and digital casts were made, and the virtual images were used for milling the digital framework in cobalt chromium alloy. All frameworks were evaluated for passivity and marginal vertical misfit with the single screw test, with 4 attempts consisting of the tightened screw position, a test with all screws tightened, and an interspersed tightening test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate the trueness of the tested device for framework construction through the single screw test on vertical marginal misfit in the conventional and printed groups (α=.008). The Friedman test was used to assess the effect of test type (α=.05), and the Wilcoxon test was used to identify group-to-group differences (α=.017).
Results:
The absence of space between the framework and the abutments and interferences during its placement, as well as good stability, were observed clinically. In laboratory analysis, greater framework misfits were observed in the printed group compared with the conventional group when the single screw test was applied. Comparing the 3 tests used, the greatest misfits were observed when the framework was screwed onto the printed cast.
Conclusions:
The innovative device tested for the intraoral scanning of multiple implants had clinically acceptable accuracy for the construction of passive and adapted frameworks. The conventional cast was more accurate than the printed cast, with lower misfit values, in all tests.
