Trueness, Precision, Time-Efficiency and Cost Analysis of Chairside Additive and Subtractive versus Lab-Based Workflows for the Manufacture of Single Crowns: an in Vitro Study.
Additive Technology
Chairside
Cost-Analysis
Dental Laboratory
Precision
Single Crowns
Subtractive Technology
Time-Efficiency
Trueness
Journal
Journal of dentistry
ISSN: 1879-176X
Titre abrégé: J Dent
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0354422
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Nov 2023
25 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
08
11
2023
revised:
21
11
2023
accepted:
23
11
2023
medline:
28
11
2023
pubmed:
28
11
2023
entrez:
28
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate the trueness, precision, time efficiency, and cost of three different workflows for manufacturing single crowns (SCs). A plaster model with a prepared tooth (#15) was scanned with an industrial scanner, and an SC was designed in computer-assisted-design (CAD) software. Ten SCs were printed with a hybrid composite (additive chairside) and a stereolithographic (SLA) printer (Dfab®), 10 SCs were milled in lithium disilicate (subtractive chairside) using a chairside milling unit (inLab MC XL®), and 10 SCs were milled in zirconia (lab-based) using a five-axis laboratory machine (DWX-52D®). All SCs were scanned with the same scanner after polymerization/sinterization. Each scan was superimposed to the marginal area of the original CAD file to evaluate trueness: absolute average (ABS AVG), root mean square (RMS), and (90˚-10˚)/2 percentile were calculated for each group. Marginal adaptation and quality of the occlusal and interproximal contact points were also investigated by two prosthodontists on 3D printed and plaster models. Finally, the three workflows' time efficiency and costs were evaluated. Additive chairside and subtractive lab-based SCs had significantly better marginal trueness than subtractive chairside SCs in all three parameters (ABS AVG, p < 0.01; RMS, p < 0.01; [90˚-10˚]/2, p < 0.01). However, the two prosthodontists found no significant differences between the three manufacturing procedures in the quality of the marginal closure (p = 0.186), interproximal (p = 0.319), and occlusal contacts (p = 0.218). Both time efficiency and cost show a trend favoring the chairside additive workflow. Chairside additive technology seems to represent a valid alternative for manufacturing definitive SCs, given the high marginal trueness, precision, workflow efficiency and low costs. Additive chairside manufacturing of definitive hybrid composite SCs is now possible and shows high accuracy, time efficiency, and competitive cost.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38013004
pii: S0300-5712(23)00378-0
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104792
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104792Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no conflict of interest related to this work. No grants, funding nor financial support was obtained for the preparation of the present study.