Reference-based surface agreement of customized implant abutments: a comparison of two workflows.
- 1Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.
- 2General Clinic, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.
- 3Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Dental and Life Sciences Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
Purpose
This in vitro study compared reference-based surface agreement of customized implant abutments fabricated using an industrial computer numerical control (CNC) machining workflow (CG) and a dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) milling workflow (MG).Materials and methods
A resin model with molar, premolar, and incisor implant sites was used. Sixty abutments (30 per workflow) were organized into 10 three-abutment scan datasets per workflow. CG specimens were machined from titanium bar stock, including the implant-abutment connection, whereas MG specimens were milled from pre-milled blanks only above pre-machined connections. Scans were aligned to a computer-aided design (CAD)-derived reference using retained non-abutment tooth structures. Deviation was assessed using root mean square (RMS, mm) and in-tolerance rate (inTOL, percentage of points within ± 50 µm). Curve-derived tooth-level RMS was the primary endpoint.Results
Overall surface-based RMS was lower in CG than in MG, whereas inTOL showed near-ceiling values in both groups. In the tooth-level analysis, CG showed lower RMS and higher inTOL in the molar and premolar conditions; neither outcome differed significantly in the incisor condition. In the curve-level analysis, differences favoring CG were concentrated in axial regions, whereas differences favoring MG were limited to molar Curve 2 (RMS and inTOL) and molar Curve 8 (RMS only).Conclusion
Under laboratory conditions, CG showed closer agreement on the measured surfaces, particularly in the molar and premolar conditions and in the axial region. Because the workflows differed in starting stock and machining scope, these findings represent workflow-level differences and do not establish clinical superiority.
Related
- AI‐Based Wound Measurement in a Telemedicine‐Style Workflow: Agreement With In‐Person Reference Measurements Compared With Individual Physicians and Expert Consensus
- Agreement between a wrist-worn solar-powered watch and a chest-mounted light logger in quantifying daily time above 1500 lx in children: a pilot field comparison study
- Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification of Breast-Cancer Pathology AI Agreement under Reader- and Annotation-Condition-Dependent Reference Labels
- Reference method matters: DXA system differences influence agreement with 3D optical imaging body composition estimates
- Performance of GPT-5.5 thinking for Manchester Triage System-based emergency department triage: agreement with an expert reference standard and prediction of short-term outcomes.
BibTeX
@article{kim2026referencebased,
title = {{Reference-based surface agreement of customized implant abutments: a comparison of two workflows.}},
author = {Jae-Won Kim and Min-Suk Kim and Jung-Bo Huh},
journal = {The journal of advanced prosthodontics},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.4047/jap.2026.18.5.495},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948840},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Reference-based surface agreement of customized implant abutments: a comparison of two workflows.
AU - Jae-Won Kim
AU - Min-Suk Kim
AU - Jung-Bo Huh
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/13
JO - The journal of advanced prosthodontics
DO - 10.4047/jap.2026.18.5.495
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948840
AB - Purpose This in vitro study compared reference-based surface agreement of customized implant abutments fabricated using an industrial computer numerical control (CNC) machining workflow (CG) and a dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) milling workflow (MG).Materials and methods A resin model with molar, premolar, and incisor implant sites was used. Sixty abutments (30 per workflow) were organized into 10 three-abutment scan datasets per workflow. CG specimens were machined from titanium bar stock, including the implant-abutment connection, whereas MG specimens were milled from pre-milled blanks only above pre-machined connections. Scans were aligned to a computer-aided design (CAD)-derived reference using retained non-abutment tooth structures. Deviation was assessed using root mean square (RMS, mm) and in-tolerance rate (inTOL, percentage of points within ± 50 µm). Curve-derived tooth-level RMS was the primary endpoint.Results Overall surface-based RMS was lower in CG than in MG, whereas inTOL showed near-ceiling values in both groups. In the tooth-level analysis, CG showed lower RMS and higher inTOL in the molar and premolar conditions; neither outcome differed significantly in the incisor condition. In the curve-level analysis, differences favoring CG were concentrated in axial regions, whereas differences favoring MG were limited to molar Curve 2 (RMS and inTOL) and molar Curve 8 (RMS only).Conclusion Under laboratory conditions, CG showed closer agreement on the measured surfaces, particularly in the molar and premolar conditions and in the axial region. Because the workflows differed in starting stock and machining scope, these findings represent workflow-level differences and do not establish clinical superiority.
SN - 2005-7806
SN - 2005-7814
ER -