Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Effect of prefabricated immediate interim prosthesis design and insertion workflow on seating accuracy on implants
1Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Background:
Immediate implant restoration by prefabricated prosthesis has multiple benefits. However, the design and insertion workflow of the prosthesis may influence the seating.
Purpose:
Evaluation of seating accuracy of prefabricated interim prosthesis of different designs and insertion workflows for immediate restoration of implants placed via static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS).
Materials And Methods:
A maxillary model without incisors was used to plan for two implants at the lateral incisor locations. According to the planned implants, sCAIS surgical template and a four-unit interim prosthesis were designed. Four prostheses were fabricated based on the design and insertion workflow. The first prosthesis involved complete fabrication (CF) of the interim prosthesis, where the interim prosthesis is fabricated for laboratory attachment to abutments. The other three prostheses were produced by partial fabrication (PF), where the interim prosthesis shell was produced with internal spacing between the fitting surface and the abutments. The PF prostheses were cemented on abutments attached to the inserted implants. Three different PF prosthesis designs were included with different levels of internal spacing: 100 μm (PF.1), 200 μm (PF.2), and 300 μm (PF.3). A total of 15 surgical models received implants on which each prosthesis was seated and scanned by a laboratory scanner. The vertical, horizontal, and proximal contact errors were measured.
Results:
Although all prostheses were seated on every model, the CF prostheses had greater vertical error, followed by PF.1, PF.2, and PF.3 prostheses, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for proximal contact error, where PF.3 was most superior. PF.3 prostheses had the least horizontal error than the other prostheses.
Conclusions:
All interim prostheses experienced errors at the vertical, horizontal, and proximal surfaces, which can be attributed to deviations of the inserted implants. The PF of interim prosthesis with increased internal spacing for intraoral insertion appeared to reduce seating errors.
