The Influence of Verification Jig on Framework Fit for Nonsegmented Fixed Implant-Supported Complete Denture

• Published in: Clinical implant dentistry and related research Vol. 14; no. s1; pp. e188 - e195
• Main Authors: Ercoli, Carlo, Geminiani, Alessandro, Feng, Changyong, Lee, Heeje
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.05.2012
• Subjects: Acrylic Resins - chemistry; Aged; computer aided prosthetic designs; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Alloys - chemistry; Dental Casting Investment - chemistry; dental casting technique/instrumentation; Dental Implant-Abutment Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials - chemistry; Dental Impression Technique - instrumentation; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Materials - chemistry; dental prosthesis; dental prosthesis design/methods; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Design - instrumentation; Denture, Complete; Elastomers - chemistry; Humans; implant-supported; implants restoration; Jaw, Edentulous - rehabilitation; Middle Aged; Polyvinyls - chemistry; Retrospective Studies; Siloxanes - chemistry; Titanium - chemistry
• ISSN: 1523-0899; 1708-8208; 1708-8208
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00425.x

ABSTRACT Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess if there was a difference in the likelihood of achieving passive fit when an implant‐supported full‐arch prosthesis framework is fabricated with or without the aid of a verification jig. Materials and Methods: This investigation was approved by the University of Rochester Research Subject Review Board (protocol #RSRB00038482). Thirty edentulous patients, 49 to 73 years old (mean 61 years old), rehabilitated with a nonsegmented fixed implant‐supported complete denture were included in the study. During the restorative process, final impressions were made using the pickup impression technique and elastomeric impression materials. For 16 patients, a verification jig was made (group J), while for the remaining 14 patients, a verification jig was not used (group NJ) and the framework was fabricated directly on the master cast. During the framework try‐in appointment, the fit was assessed by clinical (Sheffield test) and radiographic inspection and recorded as passive or nonpassive. Results: When a verification jig was used (group J, n = 16), all frameworks exhibited clinically passive fit, while when a verification jig was not used (group NJ, n = 14), only two frameworks fit. This difference was statistically significant (p < .001). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, the fabrication of a verification jig ensured clinically passive fit of metal frameworks in nonsegmented fixed implant‐supported complete denture.