Assessment of the Effect of two Different Digital Fabrication Techniques on Marginal and Internal Fit of Interim Fixed Dental Prothesis

Mohamed Shalaby, Mennatallah Wahba, Ahmed Mohamed
{"title":"Assessment of the Effect of two Different Digital Fabrication Techniques on Marginal and Internal Fit of Interim Fixed Dental Prothesis","authors":"Mohamed Shalaby, Mennatallah Wahba, Ahmed Mohamed","doi":"10.54623/fdj.90111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of that study was to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of a 3-unit, and 6-unit interim fixed dental prosthesis manufactured through milling and 3D printing technologies. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight interim fixed dental prostheses (FDP) were equally divided into two groups according to the fabrication technique. In group (MT), specimens were fabricated through milling technology while in group (PT), specimens were obtained by 3D printing. Each group was subdivided equally according to the FDP span length into 3-unit FDP (SFDP), and 6-unit FDP (LFDP). Marginal and internal fit were measured through the superimposition of the digital master model data and data of the fitting surfaces of the milled and printed FDPs using the “best-fit” alignment feature of a 3D evaluation superimposition software. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the two fabrication techniques as well as the two span lengths. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. Results: Results showed that 3D printing showed statistically significantly higher overall marginal gap distance (MGD) than the milling technique for the (SFDP) subgroup while milling showed higher overall (MGD) values than 3D printing for the (LFDP) subgroup. For internal fit, 3D printing showed lower overall internal gap distance values than milling. Conclusions: Milling technology was able to produce restorations with better marginal fit compared to 3D printing only in 3-unit FDPs. However, the opposite was true when the internal fit of the restorations was considered where 3D printing surpassed the milling technique in both the short-span and long-span FDPs. Consequently, 3D printing could be the technique of preference for fabricating provisional restorations especially when it comes to complex long span FDPs.","PeriodicalId":100562,"journal":{"name":"Future Dental Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54623/fdj.90111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of that study was to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of a 3-unit, and 6-unit interim fixed dental prosthesis manufactured through milling and 3D printing technologies. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight interim fixed dental prostheses (FDP) were equally divided into two groups according to the fabrication technique. In group (MT), specimens were fabricated through milling technology while in group (PT), specimens were obtained by 3D printing. Each group was subdivided equally according to the FDP span length into 3-unit FDP (SFDP), and 6-unit FDP (LFDP). Marginal and internal fit were measured through the superimposition of the digital master model data and data of the fitting surfaces of the milled and printed FDPs using the “best-fit” alignment feature of a 3D evaluation superimposition software. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the two fabrication techniques as well as the two span lengths. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. Results: Results showed that 3D printing showed statistically significantly higher overall marginal gap distance (MGD) than the milling technique for the (SFDP) subgroup while milling showed higher overall (MGD) values than 3D printing for the (LFDP) subgroup. For internal fit, 3D printing showed lower overall internal gap distance values than milling. Conclusions: Milling technology was able to produce restorations with better marginal fit compared to 3D printing only in 3-unit FDPs. However, the opposite was true when the internal fit of the restorations was considered where 3D printing surpassed the milling technique in both the short-span and long-span FDPs. Consequently, 3D printing could be the technique of preference for fabricating provisional restorations especially when it comes to complex long span FDPs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种不同数字制作技术对中期固定义齿边缘和内部配合效果的评价
目的:该研究的目的是评估通过铣削和3D打印技术制造的3单元和6单元临时固定义齿的边缘和内部配合。材料与方法:48个临时固定义齿(FDP)根据制作工艺分为两组。在组(MT)中,通过铣削技术制作样品;在组(PT)中,通过3D打印获得样品。根据FDP跨度长度将各组平均细分为3单元FDP (SFDP)和6单元FDP (LFDP)。通过使用3D评估叠加软件的“最佳拟合”对齐功能,将数字主模型数据与铣削和打印fdp的拟合表面数据进行叠加,测量边缘和内部拟合。采用Mann-Whitney U测试比较了两种制作工艺和两种跨度长度。显著性水平为P < 0.05。结果:结果显示,3D打印在(SFDP)亚组的总体边际间隙距离(MGD)高于铣削技术,而铣削技术在(LFDP)亚组的总体边际间隙距离(MGD)高于3D打印。对于内部配合,3D打印显示比铣削更低的整体内部间隙距离值。结论:在3单元fdp中,与3D打印相比,铣削技术能够产生更好的边际配合修复体。然而,当考虑到修复体的内部配合时,情况正好相反,3D打印在短跨度和长跨度fdp中都超过了铣削技术。因此,3D打印可能是制造临时修复的首选技术,特别是在复杂的长跨度fdp方面。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Measuring Accuracy of Dolphin Imaging Software in predicting upper jaw soft tissue profile changes in Class II Adult Patients treated with Extraction versus Non-Extraction Success of Early Childhood Caries After Treatment with Silver Diamine Fluoride Compared to conventional Glass Ionomer Restoration. A Systematic Review Comparison of Alignment Duration Between 0.018” And 0.022” Slot Brackets in Non-Extraction Orthodontic Adult Patients: A Randomized Clinical Study The Efficiency of Passive Ultrasonic Activated Irrigation on the Retrievability of Guttaflow Bioseal : In Vitro Study Radiographic Analysis of Umbrella Technique Combined with Sticky Bone in Horizontal Ridge Augmentation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1