Leonardo Ciocca, Mattia Maltauro, Elena Pierantozzi, Lorenzo Breschi, Angela Montanari, Laura Anderlucci, Roberto Meneghello
{"title":"数字技术与不同材料制造的可摘局部义齿金属架的真性与精度评价。","authors":"Leonardo Ciocca, Mattia Maltauro, Elena Pierantozzi, Lorenzo Breschi, Angela Montanari, Laura Anderlucci, Roberto Meneghello","doi":"10.4047/jap.2023.15.2.55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks produced using different digital protocols.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>80 frameworks for RPDs were produced using CAD-CAM technology and divided into four groups of twenty (n = 20): Group 1, Titanium frameworks manufactured by digital metal laser sintering (DMLS); Group 2, Co-Cr frameworks manufactured by DMLS; Group 3, Polyamide PA12 castable resin manufactured by multi-jet fusion (MJF); and Group 4, Metal (Co-Cr) casting by using lost-wax technique. After the digital acquisition, eight specific areas were selected in order to measure the Δ-error value at the intaglio surface of RPD. The minimum value required for point sampling density (0.4 mm) was derived from the sensitivity analysis. The obtained Δ-error mean value was used for comparisons: 1. between different manufacturing processes; 2. between different manufacturing techniques in the same area of interest (AOI); and 3. between different AOI of the same group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Δ-error mean value of each group ranged between -0.002 (Ti) and 0.041 (Co-Cr) mm. The Pearson's Chi-squared test revealed significant differences considering all groups paired two by two, except for group 3 and 4. The multiple comparison test documented a significant difference for each AOI among group 1, 3, and 4. The multiple comparison test showed significant differences among almost all different AOIs of each group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All Δ-mean error values of all digital protocols for manufacturing RPD frameworks optimally fit within the clinical tolerance limit of trueness and precision.</p>","PeriodicalId":51291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","volume":"15 2","pages":"55-62"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e7/6b/jap-15-55.PMC10154145.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of trueness and precision of removable partial denture metal frameworks manufactured with digital technology and different materials.\",\"authors\":\"Leonardo Ciocca, Mattia Maltauro, Elena Pierantozzi, Lorenzo Breschi, Angela Montanari, Laura Anderlucci, Roberto Meneghello\",\"doi\":\"10.4047/jap.2023.15.2.55\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks produced using different digital protocols.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>80 frameworks for RPDs were produced using CAD-CAM technology and divided into four groups of twenty (n = 20): Group 1, Titanium frameworks manufactured by digital metal laser sintering (DMLS); Group 2, Co-Cr frameworks manufactured by DMLS; Group 3, Polyamide PA12 castable resin manufactured by multi-jet fusion (MJF); and Group 4, Metal (Co-Cr) casting by using lost-wax technique. After the digital acquisition, eight specific areas were selected in order to measure the Δ-error value at the intaglio surface of RPD. The minimum value required for point sampling density (0.4 mm) was derived from the sensitivity analysis. The obtained Δ-error mean value was used for comparisons: 1. between different manufacturing processes; 2. between different manufacturing techniques in the same area of interest (AOI); and 3. between different AOI of the same group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Δ-error mean value of each group ranged between -0.002 (Ti) and 0.041 (Co-Cr) mm. The Pearson's Chi-squared test revealed significant differences considering all groups paired two by two, except for group 3 and 4. The multiple comparison test documented a significant difference for each AOI among group 1, 3, and 4. The multiple comparison test showed significant differences among almost all different AOIs of each group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All Δ-mean error values of all digital protocols for manufacturing RPD frameworks optimally fit within the clinical tolerance limit of trueness and precision.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"55-62\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e7/6b/jap-15-55.PMC10154145.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2023.15.2.55\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2023.15.2.55","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of trueness and precision of removable partial denture metal frameworks manufactured with digital technology and different materials.
Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks produced using different digital protocols.
Materials and methods: 80 frameworks for RPDs were produced using CAD-CAM technology and divided into four groups of twenty (n = 20): Group 1, Titanium frameworks manufactured by digital metal laser sintering (DMLS); Group 2, Co-Cr frameworks manufactured by DMLS; Group 3, Polyamide PA12 castable resin manufactured by multi-jet fusion (MJF); and Group 4, Metal (Co-Cr) casting by using lost-wax technique. After the digital acquisition, eight specific areas were selected in order to measure the Δ-error value at the intaglio surface of RPD. The minimum value required for point sampling density (0.4 mm) was derived from the sensitivity analysis. The obtained Δ-error mean value was used for comparisons: 1. between different manufacturing processes; 2. between different manufacturing techniques in the same area of interest (AOI); and 3. between different AOI of the same group.
Results: The Δ-error mean value of each group ranged between -0.002 (Ti) and 0.041 (Co-Cr) mm. The Pearson's Chi-squared test revealed significant differences considering all groups paired two by two, except for group 3 and 4. The multiple comparison test documented a significant difference for each AOI among group 1, 3, and 4. The multiple comparison test showed significant differences among almost all different AOIs of each group.
Conclusion: All Δ-mean error values of all digital protocols for manufacturing RPD frameworks optimally fit within the clinical tolerance limit of trueness and precision.
期刊介绍:
This journal aims to convey scientific and clinical progress in the field of prosthodontics and its related areas to many dental communities concerned with esthetic and functional restorations, occlusion, implants, prostheses, and biomaterials related to prosthodontics.
This journal publishes
• Original research data of high scientific merit in the field of diagnosis, function, esthetics and stomatognathic physiology related to prosthodontic rehabilitation, physiology and mechanics of occlusion, mechanical and biologic aspects of prosthodontic materials including dental implants.
• Review articles by experts on controversies and new developments in prosthodontics.
• Case reports if they provide or document new fundamental knowledge.