ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Nowadays, milling is still the gold standard for fabricating indirect restorations, but to overcome its disadvantages, there are alternatives, such as 3D printing. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the gaps between the prepared tooth and milled and printed onlays fabricated with the same CAD design. It also aimed to determine the gap reproducibility across onlays fabricated by 3D printing and milling. METHODS: A resin tooth was prepared for an onlay. After scanning the preparation, an onlay was designed with proprietary dental software. Next, 22 onlays were milled in a graphene-reinforced PMMA disc (Group 1), and 22 onlays were 3D-printed with a hybrid composite material (Group 2). After that, all fabricated restorations were scanned and superimposed on the scanned prepared resin tooth. Subsequently, a specific software was used to measure the margin, central, and intaglio-located gap between the milled or printed restoration and the preparation. Finally, measurements were compared with a multifactor analysis of variance. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that printed onlays (Group 2) adapted better to the prepared tooth than the milled ones (Group 1) (p < 0.05). The comparison of standard deviations showed the better gap reproducibility of printed onlays (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study concluded that the printed onlays adapted significantly better to the prepared tooth than the milled onlays. Printed onlays also showed significantly better gap reproducibility.
