Sanephume Sripairojn, Niwut Juntavee, Apa Juntavee
{"title":"陶瓷贴面合金的边际精度与不同的合金制造技术、陶瓷贴面方法、阶段和制造场所有关。","authors":"Sanephume Sripairojn, Niwut Juntavee, Apa Juntavee","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1795079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong> Fabrication processes affect accuracy of restoration. This study compared marginal accuracy of ceramic veneer metal upon different metal substructure fabrication techniques, ceramic veneering methods, stages, and sites of restoration.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong> A prepared premolar metal abutment was used to fabricate 96 metal substructures from 4 techniques: cast metal with traditionally impressed tooth (CmTt), cast metal with digitally milled wax (CmDw), sintered metal with digitally impressed tooth (SmDt), and sintered metal with digitally impressed stone model (SmDm). As-cast (A) substructures were degassed (D), opaqued (O), and contoured (C) with porcelain layering (Pl) or press-on (Pp) methods and glazed (G). Marginal fit was measured at A, D, O, C, and G stages, on buccal (Bu), lingual (Li), mesial (Me), and distal (Di) sites using silicone replica.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis: </strong> Analysis of variance and Bonferroni test were analyzed for significant differences of marginal fit upon different factors (<i>α</i> = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Significantly different accuracy was found upon metal substructures fabrication technique, veneering methods, stages, and sites of restoration (<i>p</i> < 0.05). SmDt and SmDm revealed significantly better accuracy than CmTt and CmDw (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Pp generated significantly better accuracy than Pl (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Significant increasing inaccuracy was found at D stage (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Me and Di sites exhibited larger inaccuracy than Bu and Li sites (<i>p</i> < 0.05). However, marginal inaccuracy for all groups was under clinically acceptable marginal fit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong> Increasing marginal inaccuracies upon stages of fabrication were noticed, with highly observed at the proximal site. Sintered metal provided better accuracy than cast metal, while press-on veneering generated better accuracy than the layering method. Porcelain press-on sintered metal was suggested for fabrication restoration.</p>","PeriodicalId":12028,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Marginal Accuracy of Ceramic Veneer Alloy Related to Different Alloy Fabrication Techniques, Ceramic Veneering Methods, Stages, and Sites of Fabrication.\",\"authors\":\"Sanephume Sripairojn, Niwut Juntavee, Apa Juntavee\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1795079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong> Fabrication processes affect accuracy of restoration. This study compared marginal accuracy of ceramic veneer metal upon different metal substructure fabrication techniques, ceramic veneering methods, stages, and sites of restoration.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong> A prepared premolar metal abutment was used to fabricate 96 metal substructures from 4 techniques: cast metal with traditionally impressed tooth (CmTt), cast metal with digitally milled wax (CmDw), sintered metal with digitally impressed tooth (SmDt), and sintered metal with digitally impressed stone model (SmDm). As-cast (A) substructures were degassed (D), opaqued (O), and contoured (C) with porcelain layering (Pl) or press-on (Pp) methods and glazed (G). Marginal fit was measured at A, D, O, C, and G stages, on buccal (Bu), lingual (Li), mesial (Me), and distal (Di) sites using silicone replica.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis: </strong> Analysis of variance and Bonferroni test were analyzed for significant differences of marginal fit upon different factors (<i>α</i> = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Significantly different accuracy was found upon metal substructures fabrication technique, veneering methods, stages, and sites of restoration (<i>p</i> < 0.05). SmDt and SmDm revealed significantly better accuracy than CmTt and CmDw (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Pp generated significantly better accuracy than Pl (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Significant increasing inaccuracy was found at D stage (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Me and Di sites exhibited larger inaccuracy than Bu and Li sites (<i>p</i> < 0.05). However, marginal inaccuracy for all groups was under clinically acceptable marginal fit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong> Increasing marginal inaccuracies upon stages of fabrication were noticed, with highly observed at the proximal site. Sintered metal provided better accuracy than cast metal, while press-on veneering generated better accuracy than the layering method. Porcelain press-on sintered metal was suggested for fabrication restoration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1795079\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1795079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目标:制作工艺会影响修复的准确性。本研究比较了不同金属基台制作技术、陶瓷贴面方法、阶段和修复部位对陶瓷贴面金属边缘精度的影响:使用制备好的前磨牙金属基台,通过以下 4 种技术制作 96 个金属基底结构:铸造金属与传统印模牙(CmTt)、铸造金属与数字铣蜡(CmDw)、烧结金属与数字印模牙(SmDt)以及烧结金属与数字印模石模型(SmDm)。用分层瓷(Pl)或压瓷(Pp)方法对铸件(A)进行脱气(D)、不透明(O)和轮廓(C)处理,然后上釉(G)。在 A、D、O、C 和 G 阶段,使用硅胶复型在颊侧(Bu)、舌侧(Li)、中侧(Me)和远侧(Di)测量边缘密合度:统计分析:采用方差分析和 Bonferroni 检验分析不同因素对边缘配合度的显著影响(α = 0.05):结果:金属基底结构制作技术、贴面方法、修复阶段和修复部位的准确性存在显著差异(p p p p p 结论):在不同的制作阶段,边缘误差会越来越大,在近端部位观察到的误差更大。烧结金属比铸造金属的精确度更高,而压入式贴面比分层法的精确度更高。建议将压瓷烧结金属用于制作修复体。
Marginal Accuracy of Ceramic Veneer Alloy Related to Different Alloy Fabrication Techniques, Ceramic Veneering Methods, Stages, and Sites of Fabrication.
Objectives: Fabrication processes affect accuracy of restoration. This study compared marginal accuracy of ceramic veneer metal upon different metal substructure fabrication techniques, ceramic veneering methods, stages, and sites of restoration.
Material and methods: A prepared premolar metal abutment was used to fabricate 96 metal substructures from 4 techniques: cast metal with traditionally impressed tooth (CmTt), cast metal with digitally milled wax (CmDw), sintered metal with digitally impressed tooth (SmDt), and sintered metal with digitally impressed stone model (SmDm). As-cast (A) substructures were degassed (D), opaqued (O), and contoured (C) with porcelain layering (Pl) or press-on (Pp) methods and glazed (G). Marginal fit was measured at A, D, O, C, and G stages, on buccal (Bu), lingual (Li), mesial (Me), and distal (Di) sites using silicone replica.
Statistical analysis: Analysis of variance and Bonferroni test were analyzed for significant differences of marginal fit upon different factors (α = 0.05).
Results: Significantly different accuracy was found upon metal substructures fabrication technique, veneering methods, stages, and sites of restoration (p < 0.05). SmDt and SmDm revealed significantly better accuracy than CmTt and CmDw (p < 0.05). Pp generated significantly better accuracy than Pl (p < 0.05). Significant increasing inaccuracy was found at D stage (p < 0.05). Me and Di sites exhibited larger inaccuracy than Bu and Li sites (p < 0.05). However, marginal inaccuracy for all groups was under clinically acceptable marginal fit.
Conclusions: Increasing marginal inaccuracies upon stages of fabrication were noticed, with highly observed at the proximal site. Sintered metal provided better accuracy than cast metal, while press-on veneering generated better accuracy than the layering method. Porcelain press-on sintered metal was suggested for fabrication restoration.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Dentistry is the official journal of the Dental Investigations Society, based in Turkey. It is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, Open Access, multi-disciplinary international journal addressing various aspects of dentistry. The journal''s board consists of eminent investigators in dentistry from across the globe and presents an ideal international composition. The journal encourages its authors to submit original investigations, reviews, and reports addressing various divisions of dentistry including oral pathology, prosthodontics, endodontics, orthodontics etc. It is available both online and in print.