Fit and Strength of a Three-Unit Temporary Prosthesis Made by Different Manufacturing Techniques: An In Vitro Study.

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

International Journal of Prosthodontics Pub Date : 2024-02-21 DOI:10.11607/ijp.8365

Rani D'haese, Renaat Coopman, Tom Vrombaut, Hugo de Bruyn, Stefan Vadenweghe

{"title":"Fit and Strength of a Three-Unit Temporary Prosthesis Made by Different Manufacturing Techniques: An In Vitro Study.","authors":"Rani D'haese, Renaat Coopman, Tom Vrombaut, Hugo de Bruyn, Stefan Vadenweghe","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare the fit and fracture load of temporary fixed partial prostheses fabricated by means of a conventional direct technique, milling, or 3D printing.Materials and methods: A maxillary right first premolar and molar were prepared on a Frasaco cast, which was then duplicated 40 times. In total, 10 provisional three-unit fixed prostheses (Protemp 4, 3M) were made using the conventional technique with a putty mold. The 30 remaining casts were scanned to design a provisional restoration using CAD software. A total of 10 designs were milled (CEREC MC X5/shaded PMMA Disk, Dentsply Sirona), while the other 20 were 3D printed with one of the two 3D printers (Asiga UV MAX or Nextdent 5100, C&B, Nextdent). Internal and marginal fit were examined using the replica technique. Next, the restorations were cemented on their respective casts and loaded until fracture using a universal testing machine. The location and propagation of the fracture were also evaluated.Results: 3D printing demonstrated the best internal fit. Nextdent (median internal fit: 132 μm) was significantly better compared to the milled (median internal fit: 185 μm; P = .006) and conventional restorations (median internal fit: 215 μm; P < .001), while the fit of Asiga (median internal fit: 152 μm) was only significantly better than the conventional restorations (P < .012). The lowest marginal discrepancy was found for the milled restorations (median marginal fit: 96 μm), but this was only significant when compared to the conventional group (median internal fit: 163 μm; P < .001). The conventional restorations demonstrated the lowest fracture load (median fracture load: 536 N), which was only significant when compared to Asiga (median fracture load: 892 N; P = .003).Conclusions: Within the present in vitro study's limitations, CAD/CAM demonstrated superior fit and strength compared to the conventional technique.","PeriodicalId":50292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","volume":" ","pages":"34-40"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8365","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the fit and fracture load of temporary fixed partial prostheses fabricated by means of a conventional direct technique, milling, or 3D printing.

Materials and methods: A maxillary right first premolar and molar were prepared on a Frasaco cast, which was then duplicated 40 times. In total, 10 provisional three-unit fixed prostheses (Protemp 4, 3M) were made using the conventional technique with a putty mold. The 30 remaining casts were scanned to design a provisional restoration using CAD software. A total of 10 designs were milled (CEREC MC X5/shaded PMMA Disk, Dentsply Sirona), while the other 20 were 3D printed with one of the two 3D printers (Asiga UV MAX or Nextdent 5100, C&B, Nextdent). Internal and marginal fit were examined using the replica technique. Next, the restorations were cemented on their respective casts and loaded until fracture using a universal testing machine. The location and propagation of the fracture were also evaluated.

Results: 3D printing demonstrated the best internal fit. Nextdent (median internal fit: 132 μm) was significantly better compared to the milled (median internal fit: 185 μm; P = .006) and conventional restorations (median internal fit: 215 μm; P < .001), while the fit of Asiga (median internal fit: 152 μm) was only significantly better than the conventional restorations (P < .012). The lowest marginal discrepancy was found for the milled restorations (median marginal fit: 96 μm), but this was only significant when compared to the conventional group (median internal fit: 163 μm; P < .001). The conventional restorations demonstrated the lowest fracture load (median fracture load: 536 N), which was only significant when compared to Asiga (median fracture load: 892 N; P = .003).

Conclusions: Within the present in vitro study's limitations, CAD/CAM demonstrated superior fit and strength compared to the conventional technique.

查看原文本刊更多论文

采用不同制造技术制造的三单元临时假体的密合性和强度：体外研究

目的：比较通过传统直接技术、铣削或三维打印技术制作的临时固定部分义齿的密合度和骨折负荷：在 Frasaco 模型上制作上颌右侧第一前磨牙和臼齿，然后复制 40 次。共使用传统技术制作了 10 个临时三单位固定义齿（Protemp 4，3M），并使用油灰模具。扫描剩余的 30 个模型，使用 CAD 软件设计临时修复体。总共有 10 个设计方案被铣制（CEREC MC X5/shaded PMMA Disk，Dentsply Sirona），而另外 20 个设计方案则使用两台 3D 打印机（Asiga UV MAX 或 Nextdent 5100，C&B，Nextdent）中的一台进行 3D 打印。使用复制技术检查了内部和边缘的密合度。然后，将修复体粘结在各自的铸模上，并使用万能试验机加载直至断裂。此外，还对断裂的位置和扩展情况进行了评估：结果：3D 打印显示出最佳的内部密合度。Nextdent（中位数内部密合度：132 μm）明显优于研磨（中位数内部密合度：185 μm；P = .006）和传统修复体（中位数内部密合度：215 μm；P < .001），而Asiga（中位数内部密合度：152 μm）仅明显优于传统修复体（P < .012）。研磨修复体的边缘差异最小（边缘密合度中位数：96 μm），但与传统修复体组（内部密合度中位数：163 μm；P < .001）相比，差异显著。传统修复体的断裂载荷最低（中位断裂载荷：536 N），但与 Asiga（中位断裂载荷：892 N；P = .003）相比才有显著性差异：结论：在本体外研究的限制条件下，与传统技术相比，CAD/CAM 表现出更优越的密合性和强度。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Prosthodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

4.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Official Journal of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP), the German Society of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science (DGPro), and the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP) Prosthodontics demands a clinical research emphasis on patient- and dentist-mediated concerns in the management of oral rehabilitation needs. It is about making and implementing the best clinical decisions to enhance patients'' quality of life via applied biologic architecture - a role that far exceeds that of traditional prosthetic dentistry, with its emphasis on materials and techniques. The International Journal of Prosthodontics is dedicated to exploring and developing this conceptual shift in the role of today''s prosthodontist, clinician, and educator alike. The editorial board is composed of a distinguished team of leading international scholars.