Fit comparison of interim crowns manufactured with open and proprietary 3D printing modes versus milling technology: An in vitro study.
3D printing
CAD‐CAM technology
crown fit
interim crowns
postprocessing
Journal
Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]
ISSN: 1708-8240
Titre abrégé: J Esthet Restor Dent
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101096515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Aug 2024
09 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
16
07
2024
received:
29
04
2024
accepted:
29
07
2024
medline:
9
8
2024
pubmed:
9
8
2024
entrez:
9
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This study aimed to assess the fit of interim crowns produced using DLP-based 3D printing with different manufacturing workflows-open and proprietary-versus milling technology. A total of 120 crowns were evaluated using the replica technique. The control group (Mill, n = 30) was manufactured via subtractive technology. Experimental groups were printed using a DLP printer (SprintRay Pro95). In the proprietary mode (SR100, n = 30), manufacturer resin was used with a 100-μm layer thickness (LT) and a splashing cleaning postprocessing. In the open mode, validated resin was used. Group B100 (n = 30) had a 100-μm LT, and group B50 (n = 30) had a 50-μm followed by postprocessing in an ultrasonic bath with full immersion in isopropyl alcohol. Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction was applied after normal analysis (α = 0.05). Group B50 exhibited the best overall fit (123.87 ± 67.42 μm), which was comparable to the gold standard Milling group, which demonstrated the lowest marginal fit (p = 0.760). SR100 showed significantly poorer performance compared to Mill, B50, and B100 (p < 0.001). 3D printed and milled interim crowns generally demonstrated clinically acceptable fit, with the exception of the SR100 group. Postprocessing notably influenced crown fit, with the open mode with total immersion in isopropyl alcohol being superior. The present study demonstrates that the selection of an optimal manufacturing and postprocessing workflow results in superior fit for interim crowns. This enables dental professionals to evaluate protocols and ensure reliable outcomes with improved clinical outcomes in interim crown fabrication.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Peng C‐C, Chung K‐H, Ramos VJ. Assessment of the adaptation of interim crowns using different measurement techniques. J Prosthodont. 2020;29:87‐93. doi:10.1111/jopr.13122
McLean J, Von Fraunhofer J. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vitro technique. Br Dent J. 1971;13:107‐111.
Karasan D, Legaz J, Boitelle P, Mojon P, Fehmer V, Sailer I. Accuracy of additively manufactured and milled interim 3‐unit fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2022;31:58‐69. doi:10.1111/jopr.13454
Wolfart S, Wegner SM, Al‐Halabi A, Kern M. Clinical Evaluation of Marginal Fit of a New Experimental all‐Ceramic System before and after Cementation. 2003.
Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradíes G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM‐fabricated all‐ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Invest. 2016;20:2403‐2410. doi:10.1007/s00784‐016‐1714‐6
Mugri MH, Dewan H, Sayed ME, et al. The effect of a digital manufacturing technique, preparation taper, and finish line design on the marginal fit of temporary molar crowns: an in‐vitro study. Biomedicine. 2023;11:570. doi:10.3390/biomedicines11020570
Boitelle P, Tapie L, Mawussi B, Fromentin O. Evaluation of the marginal fit of CAD‐CAM zirconia copings: comparison of 2D and 3D measurement methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:75‐81. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.01.026
Laurent M, Scheer P, Dejou J, Laborde G. Clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of cast crowns—validation of the silicone replica method. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35:116‐122. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2842.2003.01203.x
Young H, Smith C, Morton D. Comparative in vitro evaluation of two provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85:129‐132. doi:10.1067/mpr.2001.112797
Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:555‐560. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.002
ISO/ASTM 52900:2015(E). Additive Manufacturing—General Principles Terminology. n.d.
D'haese R, Coopman R, Vrombaut T, De Bruyn H, Vadenweghe S. Fit and strength of a three‐unit temporary prosthesis made by different manufacturing techniques: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2024;37:34‐40. doi:10.11607/ijp.8365
Alharbi N, Alharbi S, Cuijpers VMJI, Osman RB, Wismeijer D. Three‐dimensional evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3D‐printed interim restorations fabricated on different finish line designs. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62:218‐226. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2017.09.002
Al Wadei MHD, Sayed ME, Jain S, et al. Marginal adaptation and internal fit of 3D‐printed provisional crowns and fixed dental prosthesis resins compared to CAD/CAM‐milled and Conventional provisional resins: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Coatings. 2022;12:1777. doi:10.3390/coatings12111777
Hasanzade M, Yaghoobi N, Nematollahi P, Ghazanfari R. Comparison of the marginal and internal fit of PMMA interim crowns printed with different layer thicknesses in 3D‐printing technique. Clin Exp Dental Res. 2023;9:832‐839. doi:10.1002/cre2.758
Son K. Marginal and internal fit and intaglio surface trueness of temporary crowns fabricated with stereolithography, digital light processing, and milling technology. Int J Prosthodont. 2022;35:697‐701. doi:10.11607/ijp.7764
Sampaio CS, Niemann KD, Schweitzer DD, Hirata R, Atria PJ. Microcomputed tomography evaluation of cement film thickness of veneers and crowns made with conventional and 3D printed provisional materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021;33:487‐495. doi:10.1111/jerd.12651
Reymus M, Lümkemann N, Stawarczyk B. 3D‐printed material for temporary restorations: impact of print layer thickness and post‐curing method on degree of conversion. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22:231‐237.
Cao J, Liu X, Cameron A, Aarts J, Choi JJE. Influence of different post‐processing methods on the dimensional accuracy of 3D‐printed photopolymers for dental crown applications—a systematic review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2024;150:106314. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.106314
Scherer MD, Barmak AB, Özcan M, Revilla‐León M. Influence of postpolymerization methods and artificial aging procedures on the fracture resistance and flexural strength of a vat‐polymerized interim dental material. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128:1085‐1093. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.017
Lee B‐I, You S‐G, You S‐M, Kang S‐Y, Kim J‐H. Effect of rinsing time on the accuracy of interim crowns fabricated by digital light processing: an in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021;13:24‐35. doi:10.4047/jap.2021.13.1.24
Kim J‐H, Kwon J‐S, Park J‐M, Lo Russo L, Shim J‐S. Effects of postpolymerization conditions on the physical properties, cytotoxicity, and dimensional accuracy of a 3D‐printed dental restorative material. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;132:S0022391322002815. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.04.024
Katheng A, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Arakida T, Hada T, Minakuchi S. Evaluation of trueness and precision of stereolithography‐fabricated photopolymer‐resin dentures under different postpolymerization conditions: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128:514‐520. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.07.028
Pradíes G, Morón‐Conejo B, Martínez‐Rus F, Salido MP, Berrendero S. Current applications of 3D printing in dental implantology: a scoping review mapping the evidence. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023;00:1‐22. doi:10.1111/clr.14198
Mai H‐N, Lee KE, Lee K‐B, et al. Verification of a computer‐aided replica technique for evaluating prosthesis adaptation using statistical agreement analysis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9:358‐363. doi:10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.358
Shin H, Kang Y‐J, Kim H, Kim J‐H. Effect of cement space settings on the marginal and internal fit of 3D‐printed definitive resin crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;S0022391323001877. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.03.021