ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the fit of a crown produced based on a 3D printed model and to investigate its clinical applicability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master die was fabricated with epoxy. Stone dies were fabricated from conventional impressions (Conventional stone die group: CS, n=10). Digital virtual dies were fabricated by making digital impressions (Digital Virtual die group: VD, n=10). 3D data obtained from the digital impression was used to fabricate 3D printed models (DLP die group: DD, n=10, PolyJet die group: PD, n=10). A total of 40 crowns were fabricated with a milling machine, based on CS, VD, DD and PD. The inner surface of all crowns was superimposed with the master die files by the “Best-fit alignment” method using the analysis software. One-way and 2-way ANOVA were performed to identify significant differences among the groups and areas and their interactive effects (α=.05). Tukey's HSD was used for post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA results revealed a significantly higher RMS value in the 3D printed models (DD and PD) than in the CS and DV. The RMS values of PD were the largest among the four groups. Statistically significant differences among groups (P < .001) and between areas (P < .001) were further revealed by 2-way ANOVA. CONCLUSION: Although the fit of crowns fabricated based on the 3D printed models (DD and PD) was inferior to that of crowns prepared with CS and DV, the values of all four groups were within the clinically acceptable range ( < 120 µm).
Subject(s)
Crowns , MethodsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the marginal and internal gaps of the copings fabricated by computer-aided milling and direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) systems in comparison to casting method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten metal copings were fabricated by casting, computer-aided milling, and DMLS. Seven mesiodistal and labiolingual positions were then measured, and each of these were divided into the categories; marginal gap (MG), cervical gap (CG), axial wall at internal gap (AG), and incisal edge at internal gap (IG). Evaluation was performed by a silicone replica technique. A digital microscope was used for measurement of silicone layer. Statistical analyses included one-way and repeated measure ANOVA to test the difference between the fabrication methods and categories of measured points (alpha=.05), respectively. RESULTS: The mean gap differed significantly with fabrication methods (P<.001). Casting produced the narrowest gap in each of the four measured positions, whereas CG, AG, and IG proved narrower in computer-aided milling than in DMLS. Thus, with the exception of MG, all positions exhibited a significant difference between computer-aided milling and DMLS (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Although the gap was found to vary with fabrication methods, the marginal and internal gaps of the copings fabricated by computer-aided milling and DMLS fell within the range of clinical acceptance (<120 microm). However, the statistically significant difference to conventional casting indicates that the gaps in computer-aided milling and DMLS fabricated restorations still need to be further reduced.
Subject(s)
Replica Techniques , SiliconesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the marginal and internal gaps of the copings fabricated by computer-aided milling and direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) systems in comparison to casting method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten metal copings were fabricated by casting, computer-aided milling, and DMLS. Seven mesiodistal and labiolingual positions were then measured, and each of these were divided into the categories; marginal gap (MG), cervical gap (CG), axial wall at internal gap (AG), and incisal edge at internal gap (IG). Evaluation was performed by a silicone replica technique. A digital microscope was used for measurement of silicone layer. Statistical analyses included one-way and repeated measure ANOVA to test the difference between the fabrication methods and categories of measured points (alpha=.05), respectively. RESULTS: The mean gap differed significantly with fabrication methods (P<.001). Casting produced the narrowest gap in each of the four measured positions, whereas CG, AG, and IG proved narrower in computer-aided milling than in DMLS. Thus, with the exception of MG, all positions exhibited a significant difference between computer-aided milling and DMLS (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Although the gap was found to vary with fabrication methods, the marginal and internal gaps of the copings fabricated by computer-aided milling and DMLS fell within the range of clinical acceptance (<120 microm). However, the statistically significant difference to conventional casting indicates that the gaps in computer-aided milling and DMLS fabricated restorations still need to be further reduced.