Marginal Fit of Temporary Restorations Fabricated by the Conventional Chairside Method, 3D Printing, and Milling

Mohajeri, Mahsa; Khazaei, Sara; Vafaee, Fariborz; Firouz, Farnaz; Gholiabad, Somayeh Ghorbani; Shisheian, Arash

doi:10.18502/fid.v18i31.7236

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the majority (i.e., 8 out of 13) of the studies included in this review reported that marginal discrepancies were least with the provisional restorations fabricated by 3D printing when compared to those fabricated by CAD/CAM milling and conventional techniques [10,14,34,[37][38][39][40]44]. In two studies, the marginal discrepancy reported for 3D-printed provisional crowns was equal to that of those fabricated by CAD/CAM milling [5,25], whereas in two studies, the 3D-printed provisional crowns displayed the greatest marginal discrepancy [35,41]. Overall, most of the studies reported that marginal discrepancies were highest in provisional restorations fabricated using conventional techniques and materials [10,14,34,[36][37][38][39][40]44].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The overall SMD was −0.82 (−1.37 to −0.28) in favor of 3D-printed methacrylate oligomers over conventional PMMA resin and was statistically significant (p < 0.05). (A) Evaluation performed on single crowns: Aldahian et al [40] reported lower marginal discrepancies, whereas Mohajeri et al [41] reported higher marginal discrepancies for methacrylate-based 3D-printed provisional resins when compared to conventional PMMA resins (Figure 5). The overall SMD was 0.14 (−1.18 to −0.80) in favor of 3D-printed methacrylate resin over CAD/CAMmilled PMMA resin and was statistically significant (p < 0.05).…”

Section: ) (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(A) Evaluation performed on single crowns: Aldahian et al [40] reported lower marginal discrepancies, whereas Mohajeri et al [41] reported higher marginal discrepancies for methacrylate-based 3D-printed provisional resins when compared to CAD/CAM-milled PMMA resins (Figure 6). The pooled SMD was −0.23 (−0.84 to 0.39) and was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05).…”

Section: ) (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Good marginal fit prevents microleakage, cement dissolution, plaque accumulation, and secondary caries [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], whereas good internal adaptation improves the retention form, resistance form, and durability of the provisional restoration [25,29,33]. Multiple studies have been conducted to compare these two parameters, but they have reported varied results [5,7,10,14,25,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the marginal fit and internal adaptation of provisional crowns and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated using 3D-printing resins and compared them with those fabricated by CAD/CAM (computer-aided designing/computer-aided manufacturing) milling and conventional resins. The null hypotheses tested were that there would be no differences in the marginal fit and internal adaptation of 3D-printed provisional crowns and FDP resins when compared to CAD/CAM-milled and conventional provisional resins. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to construct this systematic review. The focused PICO/PECO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) question was “Do provisional crowns and FDPs (P) fabricated by 3D-printing (I) have similar marginal adaptation and internal fit (O) when compared to those fabricated by CAD/CAM milling and conventional techniques (C)?”. The protocol used for this systematic review was pre-registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science (Core Collection)) were systematically searched for indexed English literature published up to June 2022. In the initial electronic search of the selected databases, 519 articles were identified. Duplicates were removed, and screening was performed to select the articles that met the preset inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies were selected for qualitative analysis, but only ten of them provided comparative data and were selected for quantitative analysis. The modified CONSORT scale was used for qualitative analysis, and most of the included studies were rated to be of moderate quality. Based on the findings, it could be concluded that provisional crowns and FDPs fabricated from 3D-printing resins have a superior marginal fit and internal adaptation when compared to CAD/CAM-milled and conventional provisional resins; thus, they can be used as a dependable alternative to other resins.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: ) (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ) (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have investigated several commercially available intraoral scanners and the marginal fit of prostheses fabricated with CAD/CAM systems (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). However, few studies have examined the Three-Dimensional fit of crowns made with CAD/CAM systems to assess different scanner types.…”

Section: Issn:2753-9172mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Diverse Digital Impression Systems on the Three-Dimensional (3D) Fit of All-Ceram CAD/CAM Crowns

Makhlouf¹,

Hanna²,

Makhlouf³

et al. 2023

SVOADE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This in vitro study's objective is to assess the Three-Dimensional (3D) internal and marginal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAD crowns produced by various digital impression systems. Materials and Methods: Three different intraoral scanners: CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), Trios 4 (3Shape), and CS 3700 (Carestream Dental) were used to digitally scan an experimental model based on ISO 12836:2015. The CAD/CAM processes suggested by each system (CEREC Primescan, Trios 4 and CS 3700; N = 15) were used to create ceramic crowns. A 3D inspection program (Geomagic control X) was used to measure The Three-Dimensional (3D) marginal and internal fit of each ceramic crown. By using the Kruskal-Wallis test, differences between the systems and various measurements were assessed. Pairwise comparisons were used to validate statistically significant differences (= 0.05). Results: Occlusal gaps in the CEREC Primescan, Trios 4 and CS 3700 groups were 113.0, 161.3, and 438.2 µm, respectively (p<0.001). The axial gaps were 83.4, 78.0, and 107.9 µm, respectively. While the marginal gaps were 77.8, 99.3, and 60.6 µm, respectively, finally the whole gaps were 85.9, 107.3, and 214.0 µm, respectively. The marginal gap sizes with the Trios 4 system were considerably different from those with the other two systems. The CEREC Primescan system proved no distinctive variations between the four measured regions. However, the Trios 4 and CS 3700 systems did show a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Conclusion: The marginal gap, which is the most essential aspect in the marginal and internal fit of fixed prostheses, was recorded to be below 100 µm in all three systems, leading to the conclusion that all three systems are capable of producing clinically acceptable prostheses.

show abstract

Current applications of 3D printing in dental implantology: A scoping review mapping the evidence

Pradíes,

Morón‐Conejo,

Martínez‐Rus

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThis scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence in the use of 3D printing technology in dental implantology. Due to the broad scope of the subject and its application in implantology, three main areas of focus were identified: (1) customized dental implants, (2) manufacturing workflow for surgical implant guides, and (3) related implant‐supported prostheses factors, which include the metallic primary frameworks, secondary ceramic or polymer superstructures, and 3D implant analog models.Materials and MethodsOnline databases (Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL) were used to identify the studies published up to February 2023 in English. Two experienced reviewers performed independently the screening and selection among the 1737 studies identified. The articles evaluated the additive manufacturing (AM) technology, materials, printing, and post‐processing parameters regarding dental implantology.ResultsThe 132 full‐text studies that met the inclusion criteria were examined. Thirteen studies of customized dental implants, 22 studies about the workflow for surgical implant guides, and 30 studies of related implant‐supported prostheses factors were included.Conclusions(1) The clinical evidence about AM titanium and zirconia implants is scarce. Early data on survival rates, osseointegration, and mechanical properties are being reported. (2) 3D printing is a proven manufacturing technology to produce surgical implant guides. Adherence to the manufacturer's instructions is crucial and the best accuracy was achieved using MultiJet printer. (3) The quality of 3D printed prosthetic structures and superstructures is improving remarkably, especially on metallic alloys. However, better marginal fit and mechanical properties can be achieved with milling technology for metals and ceramics.

show abstract

Marginal Fit of Temporary Restorations Fabricated by the Conventional Chairside Method, 3D Printing, and Milling

Cited by 10 publications

References 32 publications

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

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

Evaluation of Diverse Digital Impression Systems on the Three-Dimensional (3D) Fit of All-Ceram CAD/CAM Crowns

Current applications of 3D printing in dental implantology: A scoping review mapping the evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About