Comparison of the Marginal and Internal Discrepancy of Metal-Ceramic Restorations Produced by Milling for Soft Metal, Direct Metal Laser Sintering and Casting Methods: An In Vitro Study

IF 0.6 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Advanced Oral Research Pub Date : 2022-07-11 DOI:10.1177/23202068221103980
Nazli Aydin, Orhun Ekren, E. Koçak, Y. Uçar
{"title":"Comparison of the Marginal and Internal Discrepancy of Metal-Ceramic Restorations Produced by Milling for Soft Metal, Direct Metal Laser Sintering and Casting Methods: An In Vitro Study","authors":"Nazli Aydin, Orhun Ekren, E. Koçak, Y. Uçar","doi":"10.1177/23202068221103980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To evaluate the effect of ceramic firing cycles on the internal and marginal discrepancy of restorations fabricated using conventional lost wax casting (LW), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), and milling for soft metal (MS). Materials and Methods: A total of 45 restorations were produced by LW, DMLS, and MS methods (n = 15), according to the digital impression on the metal die representing the prepared first molar. The internal discrepancy (ID) was measured through the silicon weight method and the marginal discrepancy (MD) was measured using a light microscope. ID and MD measurements were repeated following the metal manufacturing, ceramic application, and glazing. Statistical analyses were conducted by means of two-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD (α = 0.05) tests. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the fabrication methods (P ≤ 0.001) both for MD and ID. The mean MD values of the restorations were 31.4 ± 13.8 µm for MS, 20.8 ± 14.4 µm for LW, and 7.3 ± 6 µm for DMLS. A statistically significant increase was observed in the mean MD values of metal frameworks (P ≤ 0.001) following ceramic and glaze applications. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the ceramic and the glaze applied stages (P = .072). The mean ID values were 37 ± 5.7 mg for LW, 28 ± 6.1 mg for DMLS, and 21.6 ± 7.3 mg for MS. Unlike the manufacturing method, ceramic firing cycles had no effects on the ID (P > 0.05). Conclusion: MS had the highest mean MD, but it had the lowest ID. The ceramic firing had a significantly negative effect only on MD.","PeriodicalId":43017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Oral Research","volume":"104 1","pages":"183 - 190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23202068221103980","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the effect of ceramic firing cycles on the internal and marginal discrepancy of restorations fabricated using conventional lost wax casting (LW), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), and milling for soft metal (MS). Materials and Methods: A total of 45 restorations were produced by LW, DMLS, and MS methods (n = 15), according to the digital impression on the metal die representing the prepared first molar. The internal discrepancy (ID) was measured through the silicon weight method and the marginal discrepancy (MD) was measured using a light microscope. ID and MD measurements were repeated following the metal manufacturing, ceramic application, and glazing. Statistical analyses were conducted by means of two-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD (α = 0.05) tests. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the fabrication methods (P ≤ 0.001) both for MD and ID. The mean MD values of the restorations were 31.4 ± 13.8 µm for MS, 20.8 ± 14.4 µm for LW, and 7.3 ± 6 µm for DMLS. A statistically significant increase was observed in the mean MD values of metal frameworks (P ≤ 0.001) following ceramic and glaze applications. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the ceramic and the glaze applied stages (P = .072). The mean ID values were 37 ± 5.7 mg for LW, 28 ± 6.1 mg for DMLS, and 21.6 ± 7.3 mg for MS. Unlike the manufacturing method, ceramic firing cycles had no effects on the ID (P > 0.05). Conclusion: MS had the highest mean MD, but it had the lowest ID. The ceramic firing had a significantly negative effect only on MD.
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
软金属铣削、直接金属激光烧结和铸造金属陶瓷修复体的边缘和内部差异比较:体外研究
目的:评价陶瓷烧成周期对传统失蜡铸造(LW)、直接金属激光烧结(DMLS)和软金属铣削(MS)修复体内部和边缘差异的影响。材料和方法:根据金属模具上代表制备的第一磨牙的数字印模,采用LW, DMLS和MS方法共生产45个修复体(n = 15)。用硅重量法测量了内部差异(ID),用光学显微镜测量了边缘差异(MD)。在金属制造、陶瓷应用和上釉之后,重复进行ID和MD测量。采用双向方差分析和Tukey-HSD (α = 0.05)检验进行统计学分析。结果:MD和ID的制作方法差异有统计学意义(P≤0.001)。MS、LW和DMLS修复体的平均MD值分别为31.4±13.8µm、20.8±14.4µm和7.3±6µm。在陶瓷和釉料应用后,观察到金属框架的平均MD值有统计学意义上的显著增加(P≤0.001)。然而,陶瓷和釉面应用阶段之间没有统计学上的显著差异(P = 0.072)。LW的平均ID值为37±5.7 mg, DMLS的平均ID值为28±6.1 mg, ms的平均ID值为21.6±7.3 mg,与制造方法不同,陶瓷烧制周期对ID没有影响(P > 0.05)。结论:MS的平均MD最高,而ID最低。陶瓷烧制仅对MD有显著的负向影响。
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
Journal of Advanced Oral Research
Journal of Advanced Oral Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Radiographic Outcomes of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) with and Without Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) In Direct Pulp Capping: A Clinical Pilot Study Mineralized Collagen Fiber-based Dental Implant: Novel Perspectives Do Polishing Methods and Colorant Beverages Affect the Color Stainability of 3D-printed Permanent Restorations? The Intraoral Findings of the Patient with Robinow Syndrome and the Related Dental Treatment Approaches: A Case Report Effect of Bleaching on the Microhardness and Modulus of Elasticity of ACTIVA BioACTIVE – RESTORATIVE: An In Vitro Study
×
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