Three-dimensional fit of self-glazed zirconia monolithic crowns fabricated by wet deposition

Abstract

This study evaluated the 3-dimensional (3D) fit of self-glazed zirconia monolithic crowns fabricated by wet deposition, in comparison with milled zirconia and lithium disilicate monolithic crowns. Dual-scan protocol was used to assess the fit of crowns. Root mean squares (RMS) and uniformity index (UI) were calculated to describe the gap size and uniformity. The self-glazed zirconia crowns had significantly lower RMS values for the gaps at axial wall and transition regions than the milled zirconia crowns, and for the gaps at occlusal region than both milled crowns. All 3 types of crowns had comparable RMS values for the gaps at marginal and chamfer regions and comparable UI values for both marginal and internal gaps. The 3D fit of the self-glazed zirconia monolithic crowns was clinically acceptable and they exhibited better fit at occlusal region than the milled crowns.

Additive Manufacturing of Dental Ceramics: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

“…The AM crowns were fabricated with a hybrid SGZ protocol. Similar results were reported by Sun et al, 57 who used the same specimens as in the study by Li Y et al, 56 and investigated the same output but with a different measuring technique (replica with a direct view methods). Miura et al investigated the trueness of the occlusal surface between abutments of total occlusal convergence (TOC) of 16 and 20 53 .…”

“…A total of 28 studies were eventually included for the qualitative and quantitative assessments (Fig 1). 7,21,22,30,35,[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] The included studies were classified into 3 domains: accuracy, esthetics and color, and physical and mechanical properties. A summary of the characteristics and data of the included studies is presented in Table 2.…”

“…Two studies reported better accuracy for AM in comparison with SM. Li Y et al investigated the 3D fit of AM zirconia crowns in comparison with SM zirconia and SM lithium disilicate crowns with a dual scanning protocol 56 . AM crowns demonstrated clinically acceptable results with better fit internally at the occlusal region than the other 2 crowns.…”

“…A total of 11 in vitro studies reported on the accuracy domain (Table 2). 7,21,22,41,46,[52][53][54][55][56][57] Two materials (zirconia: 10 studies, alumina and zirconia: 1 study 52 ), different restoration types [single crowns (SC): 8 studies, 7,21,[52][53][54][55][56][57] occlusal veneer: 1 study, 41 SC and fixed dental prosthesis (FDP): 1 study, 22 bar specimens: 1 study], 46 3 AM technologies (SLA: 5 studies, 7,21,46,53,55 DLP: 2 studies, 41,54 SLA and DLP: 1 study, 52 SGZ: 3 studies 22,56,57 ) different abutment morphologies, and several accuracy outputs for different specimen areas were reported. Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both pre and post the intervention/exposure?…”

“…For the meta-analysis, 8 out of the 11 studies were included. 7,21,22,41,52,[54][55][56] Two studies were excluded because there was no control group, 46,53 and 1 study (Sun et al 57 ) was excluded to avoid overestimation, because it used the same specimens and investigated the same outputs of another included study (Li Y et al 56 ). The difference between these 2 studies was the method of assessment of the marginal and internal fit (Table 2).…”