Repositioning accuracy of the implant- and abutment-level prosthetic components used in conventional and digital workflows

To evaluate the repositioning accuracy of the implant- and abutment-level impression components (impression abutments and implant scan bodies) and implant abutments (with and without anti-rotational hex index); also, to estimate the tightening torque influence on the positional stability of abutments. Seven types of prosthetic components (n=7) (impression pick-up copings (PC), implant scan bodies (ISB), non-hex and hex titanium base implant abutments (TB H and TB NH), multi-unit impression copings (MU PC), multi-unit implant scan bodies (MU ISB), and multi-unit caps (MU C) (Medentika GmbH)) were tested. For repositioning accuracy tests a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used. During assembly 15 Ncm torque for all components was applied. After measurement, only hex and non-hex abutments were torqued to 25 Ncm and their coordinates were again recorded to assess torque influence. The procedure was repeated 7 times for each component. Linear and 3D deviations, angulation to the vertical axis, and axial rotation were calculated. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the measurements between the groups. A post-hoc test (Mann–Whitney U test) was used for pairwise comparison to determine the influence of the torque (α=0.05). Implant- and abutment-level components used for digital scans showed different positional discrepancies compared to ones used for conventional impressions and ranged from 10 to 37 µm. Hex abutments demonstrated statistically significantly lower 3D deviations (4.4 ±7.1 µm) compared to non-hex abutments (8.7 ±6.1 µm). Torque influence was significantly lower for hex abutments than for non-hex abutments. Repositioning inaccuracies were found in all implant- and abutment-level impression components (impression abutments and implant scan bodies) and all abutments (with and without anti-rotational hex index) tested. Final tightening of the components could cause further positional discrepancies. However, the misfit of the prosthetic components used in conventional and digital workflows stays in the clinically acceptable range. Even when multiple connections and disconnections on the track of the laboratory preparation is needed, it should not have a negative influence for single teeth reconstructions. However, in the complex cases with multiple implants, repetitive repositioning of the prosthetic components may lead to the accumulation of vertical, horizontal and rotational errors leading to the clinical problems with the passive fit of the final framework.