Back to Search Start Over

Marginal and Internal Gap of Handmade, Milled and 3D Printed Additive Manufactured Patterns for Pressed Lithium Disilicate Onlay Restorations.

Authors :
Revilla-León M
Olea-Vielba M
Esteso-Saiz A
Martínez-Klemm I
Özcan M
Source :
The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry [Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent] 2018 Mar 01; Vol. 26 (1), pp. 31-38. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Mar 01.
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

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.<br />Purpose: The present study measured the marginal and internal gap of handmade, milled and additive manufactured patterns for an onlay restoration.<br />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.<br />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.<br />Conclusions: All the groups presented less than 100 μm marginal and internal gap, which is a considered clinically acceptable.<br />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.<br /> (Copyright© 2018 Dennis Barber Ltd.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
0965-7452
Volume :
26
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
29461746
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01733RevillaLeon08