Search

Statement of Problem: Titanium frameworks for implant-supported prostheses can be additively manufactured using different powder-based fusion technologies, including selective laser melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM). Some manufacturers have developed a technique that combines the printing of the framework with the subsequent machining of the implant interface. Whether these technologies produce frameworks with acceptable accuracies is unclear., Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the discrepancy obtained from the digitizing procedures of the definitive cast, the implant-prosthesis discrepancy, and the distortion of the manufacturing processes in the fabrication of titanium frameworks for implant-supported complete-arch prostheses manufactured using SLM and EBM additive manufacturing technologies., Material and Methods: A completely edentulous mandibular definitive cast with 4 implant analogs and a replica of a screw-retained interim restoration was obtained. A standard tessellation language (STL) file of the framework design was prepared using dental software (Exocad). Six frameworks were manufactured using either SLM (3D Systems) or EBM (Arcam) technologies. Discrepancy (μm) was measured at the x- (mesiodistal), y- (buccolingual), and z- (occlusogingival) axes by using the formula 3D=x 2 +y 2 +z 2 three times by best-fit superimposure of the definitive cast STL file, the definitive cast titanium framework, and the framework STL file by using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) controlled by software (Geomagic). The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests were used (α=.05)., Results: The digitizing procedures of the definitive cast showed a mean accuracy of 3 ±3 μm. Except for the z-axis (P<.05), no significant differences were observed between the SLM and EBM technologies for implant prosthesis discrepancy for the x- or y-axis (P>.05). The most favorable results were obtained in the z-axis, representing the occlusogingival direction. Three-dimensional discrepancy measurements in all comparisons ranged between (60 ±18 μm and 69 ±30 μm) and were not statistically significant (P>.05). The highest discrepancy was observed in the y-axis (37 to 56 μm), followed by the x- (16 to 44 μm) and z- (6 to 11 μm) axes (P<.05)., Conclusions: The titanium frameworks analyzed for a complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis fabricated using either the SLM or EBM additive technologies showed a clinically acceptable implant-prosthesis discrepancy, where similar discrepancies on the x-, y-, and z-axes were found between the additive manufacturing technologies. Both technologies showed comparable abilities to manufacture the STL file additively on the x-, y-, and z-axes., (Copyright © 2018 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Statement of the Problem: On a pressed lithium disilicate restoration, the building up of a wax pattern of the future restoration is a necessary step on the fabrication process. Conventionally, a wax pattern can be produced by handmade or milled procedures; however, the development of additive manufacturing technologies allows a new fabrication method., Purpose: The present study measured the marginal and internal gap of handmade, milled and additive manufactured patterns for an onlay restoration., Material and Methods: A preparation of an onlay restoration was made on an extracted mandibular tooth. A definitive cast was fabricated from a conventional silicone impression of the prepared tooth. Three groups were established: handmade (HM), milled (ML) and additive manufactured (AM); 4 specimens per group were obtained. The marginal and internal gap of each pattern was measured on the extracted molar through a computed tomography test. Sixty measurements were done to measure the marginal gap and another 60 measurements were calculated to analyze the internal gap on each pattern on the prepared tooth. A total of 1.440 measurements were completed. Mann-Whitney and Turkey statistical tests were used for pairwise comparison., Results: The mean of the marginal and internal gap was of 67.56 ± 6.08 μm and 80.62 ± 3.26 μm for the HM group, 85.28 ± 2.17 μm and 96 ± 1.97 μm for the ML group and 86.49 ± 1.74 μm and 91.86 ± 2.88 μm for the AM group, respectively. The HM group presented significantly lower marginal (p=0.029) and internal (p=0.029) gap compared to the ML and AM groups. There was no statistical significant difference (p=0.486) on the marginal gap between the ML and the AM groups, but the AM group, showed significantly (p=0.029) smaller internal gap than the ML group., Conclusions: All the groups presented less than 100 μm marginal and internal gap, which is a considered clinically acceptable., Clinical Implications: The three fabrication processes are viable option for manufacturing patterns for lithium disilicate onlay restorations, but the best marginal and internal fit was still obtained by the conventional handmade procedures., (Copyright© 2018 Dennis Barber Ltd.)