Marginal and internal discrepancy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated by subtractive and additive manufacturing

Jae-Won Choi

doi:10.4047/jkap.2020.58.1.7

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.58(1) > 1142247

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi: Marginal and internal discrepancy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated by subtractive and additive manufacturing

Original Article

The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2020; 58(1): 7-13.

Published online: 31 January 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2020.58.1.7

Marginal and internal discrepancy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated by subtractive and additive manufacturing

Jae-Won Choi

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.

Corresponding Author: Jae-Won Choi. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University 20, Geumo-ro, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan 50612, Republic of Korea. +82 (0)55 360 5133: won9180@hanmail.net

Received 28 August 2019 Revised 1 October 2019 Accepted 3 October 2019

The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study was to evaluate marginal and internal discrepancy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP) fabricated by subtractive manufacturing and additive manufacturing.

Materials and methods

3-unit bridge abutments without the maxillary left second premolar were prepared (reference model) and the reference model scan data was obtained using an intraoral scanner. 3-unit fixed dental prostheses were fabricated in the following three ways: Milled 3-unit FDP (MIL), digital light processing (DLP) 3D printed 3-unit FDP (D3P), stereolithography apparatus (SLA) 3D printed 3-unit FDP (S3P). To evaluate the marginal/internal discrepancy and precision of the prosthesis, scan data were superimposed by the triple-scan protocol and the combinations calculator, respectively. Quantitative and qualitative analysis was performed using root mean square (RMS) value and color difference map in 3D analysis program (Geomagic control X). Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05), Mann-Whitney U test and Bonferroni correction (α=.05/3=.017).

Results

The marginal discrepancy of S3P group was superior to MIL and D3P groups, and MIL and D3P groups were similar. The D3P and S3P groups showed better internal discrepancy than the MIL group, and there was no significant difference between the D3P and S3P groups. The precision was excellent in the order of MIL, S3P, and D3P groups.

Conclusion

Within the limitation of this study, the 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated by additive manufacturing showed better marginal and internal discrepancy than the those of fabricated by subtractive manufacturing, but the precision was poor.

Keywords: Additive manufacturing, Internal discrepancy, Marginal discrepancy, Precision, Subtractive manufacturing

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Fabrication of 3-unit FDPs (upper, occlusal view; lower, buccal view). (A) MIL: milled 3-unit FDP, (B) D3P: DLP 3D printed 3-unit FDP, (C) S3P: SLA 3D printed 3-unit FDP

Fig. 2

Color difference maps for qualitative analysis of marginal (upper) and internal discrepancies (lower). (A) MIL: milled 3-unit FDP, (B) D3P: DLP 3D printed 3-unit FDP, (C) S3P: SLA 3D printed 3-unit FDP.

Fig. 3

Color difference maps for qualitative analysis of inner surfaces. (A) MIL: milled 3-unit FDP, (B) D3P: DLP 3D printed 3-unit FDP, (C) S3P: SLA 3D printed 3-unit FDP.

Table 1

Methods and materials tested in this study

MIL, milled 3-unit FDP; D3P, DLP 3D printed 3-unit FDP; S3P, SLA 3D printed 3-unit FDP.

Table 2

Mean (± SD) RMS values and 95% CIs for marginal and internal discrepancies (unit: µm)

Values followed by the same letter were not significantly different (P > .05/3 = .017). P-values are from a Kruskal-Wallis test.

RMS, root mean square; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; MIL, milled 3-unit FDP; D3P, DLP 3D printed 3-unit FDP; S3P, SLA 3D printed 3-unit FDP.

Table 3

Precision based on mean (± SD) RMS values and 95% CIs for 3-unit FDPs fabricated by different methods (unit: µm)

Values followed by the same letter were not significantly different (P > .05/3 = .017). P-values are from a Kruskal-Wallis test.

RMS, root mean square; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; MIL, milled 3-unit FDP; D3P, DLP 3D printed 3-unit FDP; S3P, SLA 3D printed 3-unit FDP.

References

1. Kang SY, Park JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technique. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018; 10:354–360.

2. Rakhshan V. Marginal integrity of provisional resin restoration materials: A review of the literature. Saudi J Dent Res. 2015; 6:33–40.

3. Tom T, Uthappa M, Sunny K, Begum F, Nautiyal M, Tamore S. Provisional restorations: An overview of materials used. J Adv Clin Res Insights. 2016; 3:212–214.

4. Lee WS, Lee DH, Lee KB. Evaluation of internal fit of interim crown fabricated with CAD/CAM milling and 3D printing system. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9:265–270.

5. Alharbi N, Osman R, Wismeijer D. Effects of build direction on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed complete coverage interim dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115:760–767.

6. Abdullah AO, Tsitrou EA, Pollington S. Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24:258–263.

7. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008; 204:505–511.

8. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:3–12.

9. Torabi K, Farjood E, Hamedani S. Rapid prototyping technologies and their applications in prosthodontics, a review of literature. J Dent (Shiraz). 2015; 16:1–9.

10. Kim CM, Kim SR, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Trueness of milled prostheses according to number of ball-end mill burs. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115:624–629.

11. Hoang LN, Thompson GA, Cho SH, Berzins DW, Ahn KW. Die spacer thickness reproduction for central incisor crown fabrication with combined computer-aided design and 3D printing technology: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113:398–404.

12. Sun J, Zhang FQ. The application of rapid prototyping in prosthodontics. J Prosthodont. 2012; 21:641–644.

13. Liu Q, Leu MC, Schmitt SM. Rapid prototyping in dentistry: technology and application. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2006; 29:317–335.

14. Özçelik TB, Yilmaz B, Şeker E, Shah K. Marginal adaptation of provisional CAD/CAM restorations fabricated using various simulated digital cement space settings. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33:1064–1069.

15. Burns DR1, Beck DA, Nelson SK. Committee on research in fixed prosthodontics of the academy of fixed prosthodontics. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: report of the committee on research in fixed prosthodontics of the academy of fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90:474–497.

16. Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P, Jeannin C, Pradelle N, Seux D, Grosgogeat B. Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations: A systematic review of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121:590–597.

17. 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.

18. Mai HN, Lee KB, Lee DH. Fit of interim crowns fabricated using photopolymer-jetting 3D printing. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118:208–215.

19. Huh JB, Kim US, Kim HY, Kim JE, Lee JY, Kim YS, Jeon YC, Shin SW. Marginal and internal fitness of three-unit zirconia cores fabricated using several CAD/CAM systems. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2011; 49:236–244.

20. Christensen GJ. The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136:343–346.

21. Homsy FR, Özcan M, Khoury M, Majzoub ZAK. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate inlays fabricated with milling, 3D printing, and conventional technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119:783–790.

22. Ahn JJ, Huh JB, Choi JW. In vitro evaluation of the wear resistance of provisional resin materials fabricated by different methods. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2019; 57:110–117.

23. Cho WT, Choi JW. Comparison analysis of fracture load and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins fabricated by different methods. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2019; 57:225–231.

24. Schaefer O, Watts DC, Sigusch BW, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:320–326.

25. Son K, Lee S, Kang SH, Park J, Lee KB, Jeon M, Yun BJ. A comparison study of marginal and internal fit assessment methods for fixed dental prostheses. J Clin Med. 2019; 8:E785.

26. Sachs C, Groesser J, Stadelmann M, Schweiger J, Erdelt K, Beuer F. Full-arch prostheses from translucent zirconia: accuracy of fit. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:817–823.

27. Molin M, Karlsson S. The fit of gold inlays and three ceramic inlay systems. A clinical and in vitro study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1993; 51:201–206.

28. Colpani JT, Borba M, Della Bona A. Evaluation of marginal and internal fit of ceramic crown copings. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:174–180.

29. Praça L, Pekam FC, Rego RO, Radermacher K, Wolfart S, Marotti J. Accuracy of single crowns fabricated from ultrasound digital impressions. Dent Mater. 2018; 34:e280–e288.

30. 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.

31. Park JY, Bae SY, Lee JJ, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9:159–169.

32. Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro. J Dent. 2014; 42:677–683.

33. Dahl BE, Rønold HJ, Dahl JE. Internal fit of single crowns produced by CAD-CAM and lost-wax metal casting technique assessed by the triple-scan protocol. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117:400–404.

34. Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60:72–84.

35. De Souza AF, Diniz AE, Rodrigues AR, Coelho RT. Investigating the cutting phenomena in free-form milling using a ball-end cutting tool for die and mold manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2014; 71:1565–1577.

36. Lee S. Prospect for 3D printing technology in medical, dental, and pediatric dental field. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2016; 43:93–108.

37. Dikova T, Dzhendov DA, Ivanov D, Bliznakova K. Dimensional accuracy and surface roughness of polymeric dental bridges produced by different 3D printing processes. Arch Mater Sci Eng. 2018; 94:65–75.

38. Nejatidanesh F, Lotfi HR, Savabi O. Marginal accuracy of interim restorations fabricated from four interim autopolymerizing resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 95:364–367.

39. Yao J, Li J, Wang Y, Huang H. Comparison of the flexural strength and marginal accuracy of traditional and CAD/CAM interim materials before and after thermal cycling. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:649–657.

40. Jeong SJ, Cho HW, Jung JH, Kim JM, Kim YL. Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of metal copings fabricated by various CAD/CAM methods. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2019; 57:211–218.

41. Kim DY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Reproducibility of different arrangement of resin copings by dental microstereolithography: Evaluating the marginal discrepancy of resin copings. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117:260–265.

42. Berger U. Aspects of accuracy and precision in the additive manufacturing of plastic gears. Virtual Phys Prototype. 2015; 10:49–57.

43. Osman RB, Alharbi N, Wismeijer D. Build angle: Does it influence the accuracy of 3D-printed dental restorations using digital light-processing technology? Int J Prosthodont. 2017; 30:182–188.

44. Alharbi N, Osman RB, Wismeijer D. Factors influencing the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed full-coverage dental restorations using stereolithography technology. Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29:503–510.

45. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont. 2017; 26:581–586.

TOOLS

ORCID iDs: Jae-Won Choi
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6786-9251
Similar articles