OBJECTIVES: Optical scanners combined with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology provide high accuracy in the fabrication of titanium (TIT) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO) bars. The aim of this study was to compare the precision of fit of CAD/CAM TIT bars produced with a photogrammetric and a laser scanner. METHODS: Twenty rigid CAD/CAM bars were fabricated on one single edentulous master cast with 6 implants in the positions of the second premolars, canines and central incisors. A photogrammetric scanner (P) provided digitized data for TIT-P (n=5) while a laser scanner (L) was used for TIT-L (n=5). The control groups consisted of soldered gold bars (gold, n=5) and ZrO-P with similar bar design. Median vertical distance between implant and bar platforms from non-tightened implants (one-screw test) was calculated from mesial, buccal and distal scanning electron microscope measurements. RESULTS: Vertical microgaps were not significantly different between TIT-P (median 16μm; 95% CI 10-27μm) and TIT-L (25μm; 13-32μm). Gold (49μm; 12-69μm) had higher values than TIT-P (p=0.001) and TIT-L (p=0.008), while ZrO-P (35μm; 17-55μm) exhibited higher values than TIT-P (p=0.023). Misfit values increased in all groups from implant position 23 (3 units) to 15 (10 units), while in gold and TIT-P values decreased from implant 11 toward the most distal implant 15. SIGNIFICANCE: CAD/CAM titanium bars showed high precision of fit using photogrammetric and laser scanners. In comparison, the misfit of ZrO bars (CAM/CAM, photogrammetric scanner) and soldered gold bars was statistically higher but values were clinically acceptable.
OBJECTIVES: Optical scanners combined with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology provide high accuracy in the fabrication of titanium (TIT) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO) bars. The aim of this study was to compare the precision of fit of CAD/CAM TIT bars produced with a photogrammetric and a laser scanner. METHODS: Twenty rigid CAD/CAM bars were fabricated on one single edentulous master cast with 6 implants in the positions of the second premolars, canines and central incisors. A photogrammetric scanner (P) provided digitized data for TIT-P (n=5) while a laser scanner (L) was used for TIT-L (n=5). The control groups consisted of soldered gold bars (gold, n=5) and ZrO-P with similar bar design. Median vertical distance between implant and bar platforms from non-tightened implants (one-screw test) was calculated from mesial, buccal and distal scanning electron microscope measurements. RESULTS: Vertical microgaps were not significantly different between TIT-P (median 16μm; 95% CI 10-27μm) and TIT-L (25μm; 13-32μm). Gold (49μm; 12-69μm) had higher values than TIT-P (p=0.001) and TIT-L (p=0.008), while ZrO-P (35μm; 17-55μm) exhibited higher values than TIT-P (p=0.023). Misfit values increased in all groups from implant position 23 (3 units) to 15 (10 units), while in gold and TIT-P values decreased from implant 11 toward the most distal implant 15. SIGNIFICANCE: CAD/CAM titanium bars showed high precision of fit using photogrammetric and laser scanners. In comparison, the misfit of ZrO bars (CAM/CAM, photogrammetric scanner) and soldered gold bars was statistically higher but values were clinically acceptable.