背景：在最近引入的聚合物中，关于加减式或减除式制造的完整拱形植入物支撑框架的制造真实性和配合性的知识有限。
目的：为了评估加减制造的基于聚合物的全弓植入物支撑框架的真实性和边缘配合度，与强度梯度氧化锆骨架的比较。
方法：带有4个植入物的typodont模型（左第一磨牙（基牙1），左犬（基牙2），右犬（基台3），和右第一磨牙（基牙4））数字化（ATOSCore805MP），并设计了植入物支撑的完整弓框架。该设计文件用于制造5种不同材料的框架：强度梯度氧化锆（SM-ZR），高抗冲聚合物复合材料（SM-CR），纳米石墨烯增强PMMA(SM-GR)，PMMA(SM-PM),和增材制造的临时树脂(AM)(n=10)。这些框架被数字化，每个扫描文件实际上被分为4个区域(基台，咬合，总体上没有咬合，和总体)。这些区域的表面偏差，并评估线性和种植体间距离偏差(GeomagicControlX)。在使用1螺钉测试在模型上就座框架后，根据三重扫描协议评估边缘间隙。数据进行统计学分析(α=0.05)。
结果：所有区域的表面偏差在测试材料之间存在差异（p≤0.001）。AM框架大多具有与其他材料相似或低于其他材料的表面偏差（p≤0.031），除了咬合面，其中大部分偏差较高(p≤0.013)。SM-CR的基台4的线性偏差高于基台2（p=0.025），材料类型不影响基台内的线性偏差(p≥0.171)。材料内部和材料之间的种植体间距偏差不同（p≤0.017），材料中1号和2号桥台之间的除外(p=0.387)。相减制造材料的边缘间隙在基台之间有所不同，而基台3和基台4的材料不同(p≤0.003)。AM框架在基台3和4处大多具有较低的边缘间隙(p≤0.048)。
结论：尽管测试材料之间的测量偏差没有明显的趋势，增材制造树脂的边缘间隙大多低于减法制造材料的边缘间隙，并且在基台部位之间没有差异。然而，材料间的测量偏差差异较小,边际差距在先前报告的可接受性阈值内.
BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge on the fabrication trueness and fit of additively or subtractively manufactured complete-arch implant-supported frameworks in recently introduced polymers.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trueness and marginal fit of additively or subtractively manufactured polymer-based complete-arch implant-supported frameworks, comparing with those of strength gradient zirconia frameworks.
METHODS: A typodont model with 4 implants (left first molar (abutment 1), left canine (abutment 2), right canine (abutment 3), and right first molar (abutment 4)) was digitized (ATOS Core 80 5MP) and an implant-supported complete-arch framework was designed. This design file was used to fabricate frameworks from 5 different materials: strength gradient zirconia (SM-ZR), high impact polymer composite (SM-CR), nanographene-reinforced PMMA (SM-GR), PMMA (SM-PM), and additively manufactured temporary resin (AM) (n = 10). These frameworks were digitized and each scan file was virtually segmented into 4 regions (abutments, occlusal, overall without occlusal, and overall). The surface deviations at these regions, and linear and interimplant distance deviations were evaluated (Geomagic Control X). Marginal gaps were evaluated according to triple-scan protocol after seating frameworks on the model with the 1-screw test. Data were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Surface deviations of all regions differed among tested materials (p ≤ 0.001). AM frameworks mostly had surface deviations that were similar to or lower than those of other materials (p ≤ 0.031), except for the occlusal surface, where it mostly had higher deviations (p ≤ 0.013). Abutment 4 of SM-CR had higher linear deviations than abutment 2 (p = 0.025), and material type did not affect the linear deviations within abutments (p ≥ 0.171). Interimplant distance deviations differed within and among materials (p ≤ 0.017), except for those between abutments 1 and 2 among materials (p = 0.387). Marginal gaps of subtractively manufactured materials differed among abutments, while those of abutments 3 and 4 differed among materials (p ≤ 0.003). AM frameworks mostly had lower marginal gaps at abutments 3 and 4 (p ≤ 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no clear trend among tested materials for measured deviations, marginal gaps of additively manufactured resin were mostly lower than those of subtractively manufactured materials and did not differ among abutment sites. Nevertheless, the differences in measured deviations among materials were small and marginal gaps were within the previously reported acceptability thresholds.
