Digital evaluation of laser scanning speed effects on the intaglio surface adaptation of laser-sintered metal frameworks

Kaleli, Necati; Ural, Çağrı

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.020

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such an increase in layer thickness (i.e. a faster production) negatively affects the surface resolution (Kaleli & Ural, 2020 ; Kaleli et al., 2019 ) and the mechanical properties of the restoration (Shim et al., 2020 ). One has to bear in mind that the capacity of the a‐CAM technology (Kessler et al., 2020 ) and the properties of the processed a‐CAM material (Sames et al., 2016 ) may limit the layer thickness, thereby controlling the production time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different a‐CAM technologies exist and are applied in implant dentistry for processing polymers (Revilla‐Leon & Ozcan, 2019 ), ceramics (Methani et al., 2020 ; Revilla‐Leon et al., 2020 ) and metals (Revilla‐Leon et al., 2019 ; Sun & Zhang, 2012 ). Applied a‐CAM technology, processed materials, layer thickness and possible post‐processing measures can affect the time of a‐CAM procedures (Kaleli & Ural, 2020 ; Kessler et al., 2020 ; Presotto et al., 2019 ; Sames et al., 2016 ; Silva et al., 2011 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Production time, effectiveness and costs of additive and subtractive computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses: A systematic review

Mühlemann

Hjerppe

Hämmerle

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To systematically review the dental literature for clinical studies reporting on production time, effectiveness and/or costs of additive and subtractive computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses. Materials and methods A systematic electronic search for clinical studies from 1990 until June 2020 was performed using the online databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Time required for the computer‐aided design (CAD) process, the CAM process, and the delivery of the CAD‐CAM prostheses were extracted. In addition, articles reporting on the effectiveness and the costs of both manufacturing technologies were included. Results Nine clinical studies were included reporting on subtractive CAM (s‐CAM; 8 studies) and additive CAM (a‐CAM; 1 study). Eight studies reported on the s‐CAM of prosthetic and auxiliary components for single implant crowns. One study applied a‐CAM for the fabrication of an implant bar prototype. Time was provided for the CAD process of implant models (range 4.9–11.8 min), abutments (range 19.7–32.7 min) and crowns (range 11.1–37.6 min). The time for s‐CAM of single implant crown components (abutment/crown) ranged between 8.2 and 25 min. Post‐processing (e.g. sintering) was a time‐consuming process (up to 530 min). At delivery, monolithic/veneered CAD‐CAM implant crowns resulted in additional adjustments chairside (51%/93%) or labside (11%/19%). Conclusions No scientific evidence exists on production time, effectiveness and costs of digital workflows comparing s‐CAM and a‐CAM. For both technologies, post‐processing may substantially contribute to the production time. Considering effectiveness, monolithic CAD‐CAM implant crowns may be preferred compared to veneered CAD‐CAM crowns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production time, effectiveness and costs of additive and subtractive computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses: A systematic review

Mühlemann

Hjerppe

Hämmerle

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The laser sintering is conducted under control of several processing parameters, which affect the mechanical properties of final product. One of the important parameters is the layer thickness of sintering process (Kaleli et al, 2019a;Kaleli et al, 2019b;Kaleli and Ural, 2020). The laser sintering systems used in metal manufacturing generally work with the principle of powder-bed fusion.…”

Section: Additive Metal Manufacturing Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As for dental applications, the laser sintering process is conducted approximately with a layer thickness of 20 μm (Koutsoukis et al, 2015), and this cannot be further decreased because of that setting the layer thickness lower than 20 μm increases the porosity within the structure (Mazzoli, 2013). Another important processing parameter is the laser scanning speed, which is mostly under the operator's control (Kaleli and Ural, 2020). Increasing the laser scanning speed decreases the manufacturing time (Senthilkumaran et al, 2009); however, the linear energy density of the laser input decreases as well, and this results in a balling effect and transverse shrinkage distortion in the interparticle zone (Wang et al, 2007;Zhang et al, 2012).…”

Section: Additive Metal Manufacturing Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-aided dental manufacturing technologies used in fabrication of metal frameworks

Kaleli¹,

Ural²,

Uçar³

2021

J Exp Clin Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metal alloys have been used for many years as framework material of dental restorations. The conventional lost-wax and casting method, which was very popular in fabrication of metal frameworks, are now being replaced by computer-aided manufacturing technologies. Computer-aided manufacturing methods offer many advantages, such as standardization and quality in manufacturing, precise fit of restorations, and improved mechanical strength. Digital technologies used in fabrication of metal frameworks are simply classified as subtractive and additive computer-aided manufacturing systems, and each have their own subdivisions, which show differences in the used technology. This review summarizes computer-aided systems used in fabrication of metal frameworks in terms of use in dental practice, advantages, disadvantages and provides clinical recommendations.

show abstract

“…29 Studies evaluating the marginal adaptation after repeated firing remain scarce; [30][31][32][33] and the annealing effect on the prosthesis adaptation is still lacking in the SLM manufacturing techniques. 34 Thus, the objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of the firing process on the marginal and internal fit of CoCr multiunit prostheses fabricated by additive manufacturing. The null hypothesis was that the annealing procedure and ceramic firing protocols would not induce a difference in the restorations fit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Firing Cycles on the Fit of Cobalt‐Chromium Multiunit Prostheses Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing

Daou

Baba

2022

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The effect of annealing and firing cycle on the adaptation of cobalt‐chromium (CoCr) restorations fabricated by additive manufacturing has been poorly documented. This study compared the marginal and internal fit of CoCr three‐unit fixed dental prostheses before and after firing cycles. Material and methods The first right maxillary premolar (MP) and molar (MM) on a typodont model, were prepared with a circumferential 1.2 mm chamfer, 2 mm occlusal reduction, and total taper of 8 degrees, to receive 3‐unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP). After the framework design, 20 framework specimens were fabricated using CoCr metal powder by selective laser melting. The replica technique was used for marginal and internal fit measurements in mesiodistal and buccolingual planes. The specimens were submitted to an annealing process, and to ceramic firing protocol. Measurements were repeated after each firing cycle. The data were compared by using Levene test, t‐test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) (α = 0.05). Results A significant difference was found in the total intaglio surface discrepancy between the 3 treatments. The annealing treatment induced a statistical difference in the discrepancy value compared to the as printed state (p = 0.028). A significant difference was detected between the initial manufacturing phase and the ceramic layering firing cycle (p = 0.003). Conclusions Firing cycles induced an alteration of the frameworks adaptation.

show abstract

Digital evaluation of laser scanning speed effects on the intaglio surface adaptation of laser-sintered metal frameworks

Cited by 7 publications

References 46 publications

Production time, effectiveness and costs of additive and subtractive computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses: A systematic review

Production time, effectiveness and costs of additive and subtractive computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses: A systematic review

Computer-aided dental manufacturing technologies used in fabrication of metal frameworks

The Effect of Firing Cycles on the Fit of Cobalt‐Chromium Multiunit Prostheses Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About