Evaluation of the accuracy and stress distribution of 3-unit implant supported prostheses obtained by different manufacturing methods.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the vertical, positive-horizontal, and negative-horizontal misfit (VM, PHM, and NHM, respectively) of the zirconia three-element prosthetic framework, fabricated using different methods, and compare them with conventional fabrication methods (lost-wax casting). Furthermore, this study aimed to evaluate the influence of the misfit values on the biomechanical behavior of the 3-unit fixed prosthetic frameworks using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Forty frameworks (n = 10) were fabricated as follow: G1, Cerec Bluecam; G2, iTero; G3, 3Series; and G4, conventional method. The samples were randomized to measure marginal misfit using a high-precision three-dimensional (3D)-optical microscope. The results were submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the significance level set at 5%. The mean VM values of each group were used in creating the models by 3D-FEA with the misfit found in optical microscopy. The programs used were the InVesalius, Rhinoceros, SolidWorks, FEMAP and NEiNastran. The von Mises map was plotted for each model. The G4 showed the lowest mean VM value (16.73 µm), followed by G3 (20.71 µm), G2 (21.01 µm), and G1 (41.77 µm) (p < 0.001). G2 was more accurate than G1 (p < 0.05) and similar to G3 (p = 0.319). For PHM, G4 was the most accurate and did not present overextended values. With regard to NHM, the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems were more accurate (-61.91 µm) than G4 (-95.36 µm) (p = 0.014). In biomechanical analysis, stress concentration caused by oblique loading is greater than caused by axial loading. In axial loading, G4 was the most favorable while G1 was the least favorable, biomechanically, in oblique loading, similar stress patterns were observed in all the models. The prosthetic screw was the most overloaded structure, but the material did not influence the stress distribution. The misfit prostheses showed a greater degree of stress than the controls (without misfit). The manufacturing method influenced the marginal misfit of the frameworks, with the conventional method being the most accurate and the Cerec Bluecam System (closed system) the least accurate. Biomechanically, fitting prostheses were more favorable than misfit prostheses.

Effect of different polymerization devices on the degree of conversion and the physical properties of an indirect resin composite.

Polymerization of indirect resin composites (IRC) is carried out in the 'laboratories using special photo-polymerization devices to achieve a higher degree of conversion (DC). Such devices present variation in chambers and light output which may have consequences on the chemical and physical properties of IRCs. This study evaluated the effect of different polymerization devices on the flexural strength, Vickers microhardness and DC of an IRC. Specimens were prepared from an IRC material, Sinfony (3M ESPE), using special molds for flexural strength test (N=30) (25 x 2 x 2 mm, ISO 4049), Vickers microhardness test (N=30) (5 x 4 mm) and for DC (N=30) utilizing Micro-raman Spectroscopy. All specimens were submitted to initial polymerization with a Visio Alpha unit (3M ESPE) and then randomly divided into three groups (n=10/ group). Specimens in Group 1 (control) received additional polymerizations using a Visio Beta Vario device (3M ESPE), and those in Group 2 and Group 3 using Powerlux (EDG) and Strobolux (EDG) devices, respectively. DC and mechanical tests were then conducted. For the mechanical tests, the data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p < 0.05) and for DC, one-way ANOVA was used. Polymerization in Strobolux (Group 3) resulted in significantly lower flexural strength (MPa) values (134 +/- 27) compared to Visio Beta Vario (165 +/- 20) (Group 1) (p < 0.05). The lowest microhardness values (Kg/mm2) were obtained in Group 3 (30 +/- 1) (p < 0.05). DC was similar in all groups (75 +/- 1, 91 +/- 5, 85 +/- 7% for Visio Beta Vario, Powerlux and Strobolux, respectively) (p = 0.1205). The type of polymerization device may affect the flexural strength and Vickers hardness of the IRC tested. DC also seems to be affected by the type of polymerization device but the results were not significant.

Effect of different polymerization devices on the degree of conversion and the physical properties of an indirect resin composite

Polymerization of indirect resin composites (IRC) is carried out in the laboratories using special photo-polymerization devices to achieve a higher degree of conversion (DC). Such devices present variation in chambers and light output which may have consequences on the chemical and physical properties of IRCs. This study evaluated the effect of different polymerization devices on the flexural strength, Vickers microhardness and DC of an IRC. Specimens were prepared from an IRC material, Sinfony (3M ESPE), using special molds for flexural strength test (N=30) (25x2x2 mm, ISO 4049), Vickers microhardness test (N=30) (5x4 mm) and for DC (N=30) utilizing Micro-raman Spectroscopy. All specimens were submitted to initial polymerization with a Visio Alpha unit (3M ESPE) and then randomly divided into three groups (n=10/ group). Specimens in Group 1 (control) received additional polymerizations using a Visio Beta Vario device (3M ESPE), and those in Group 2 and Group 3 using Powerlux (EDG) and Strobolux (EDG) devices, respectively. DC and mechanical tests were then conducted. For the mechanical tests, the data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05) and for DC, one-way ANOVA was used. Polymerization in Strobolux (Group 3) resulted in significantly lower flexural strength (MPa) values (134±27) compared to Visio Beta Vario (165±20) (Group 1) (p<0.05). The lowest microhardness values (Kg/mm2) were obtained in Group 3 (30±1) (p<0.05). DC was similar in all groups (75±1, 91±5, 85±7 % for Visio Beta Vario, Powerlux and Strobolux, respectively) (p=0.1205). The type of polymerization device may affect the flexural strength and Vickers hardness of the IRC tested. DC also seems to be affected by the type of polymerization device but the results were not significant.

As polimerizacoes de resinas compostas indiretas (RCI) sao realizadas em Laboratorio em dispositivos fotopolimerizadores especiais para que seja alcancado um maior grau de conversao (GC). Estes dispositivos apresentam variacoes nas cameras e nas lampadas polimerizadoras as quais podem gerar consequencias nas propriedades fisicas e quimicas das RCIs. Este estudo avaliou o efeito de diferentes unidades polimerizadoras na resistencia a flexao, dureza Vickers e GC de uma RCI. Amostras da RCI Sinfony (3M ESPE) foram preparadas, utilizando matrizes especiais para o teste de resistencia a flexao (N=30) (25x2x2 mm, ISO 4049), teste de microdureza Vickers (N=30) (5x4 mm) e para o GC (N=30), utilizando a espectroscopia Micro-raman. Todas as amostras foram submetidas a polimerizacao inicial na unidade Visio Alpha (3M ESPE) e em seguida elas foram divididas aleatoriamente em tres grupos (n=10/por grupo). As amostras do Gr1 (controle) tiveram sua polimerizacao final realizada na unidade Visio Beta Vario (3M ESPE), e as do Gr2 e Gr3 nas unidades Powerlux (EDG) e Strobolux (EDG), respectivamente e entao os testes mecanicos e do GC foram conduzidos. Para os testes mecanicos, os dados foram analisados utilizando a analise de Variancia (ANOVA) e o teste de Tukey (p<0.05) e ANOVA 1-fator para o GC. A polimerizacao na unidade Strobolux (Gr3) gerou valores de resistencia a flexao (MPa) significativamente inferiores (134±27) comparado a unidade Visio Beta Vario (165±20) (Gr1) (p<0.05). Os menores valores de microdureza (Kg/mm2) foram obtidos para o Gr3 (30±1) (p<0.05). O GC em todas as unidades polimerizadoras (75±1, 91±5, 85±7 % para Visio Beta Vario, Powerlux e Strobolux, respectivamente) foi semelhante entre os grupos (p=0.1205). O tipo de unidade polimerizadora afetou a resistencia a flexao e a dureza Vickers da RCI testada. O GC tambem foi afetado pelo tipo de unidade polimerizadora, mas a diferenca nao foi significativa.