PURPOSEThe purposes of this study were to evaluate the marginal and internal gaps, and the potential clinical applications of three different methods of dental prostheses fabrication, and to compare the prostheses prepared using the silicone replica technique (SRT) and those prepared using the three-dimensional superimposition analysis (3DSA).MATERIALS AND METHODSFive Pekkton, lithium disilicate, and zirconia crowns were each manufactured and tested using both the SRT and the two-dimensional section of the 3DSA. The data were analyzed with the nonparametric version of a two-way analysis of variance using rank-transformed values and the Tukey's post-hoc test (α = .05).RESULTSSignificant differences were observed between the fabrication methods in the marginal gap (P < .010), deep chamfer (P < .001), axial wall (P < .001), and occlusal area (P < .001). A significant difference in the occlusal area was found between the two measurement methods (P < .030), whereas no significant differences were found in the marginal gap (P > .350), deep chamfer (P > .719), and axial wall (P > .150). As the 3DSA method is three-dimensional, it allows for the measurement of arbitrary points.CONCLUSIONAll of the three fabrication methods are valid for measuring clinical objectives because they produced prostheses within the clinically acceptable range. Furthermore, a three-dimensional superimposition analysis verification method such as the silicone replica technique is also applicable in clinical settings.

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to verify the clinical-feasibility of additive manufacturing by comparing the accuracy of four different manufacturing methods for metal coping: the conventional lost wax technique (CLWT); subtractive methods with wax blank milling (WBM); and two additive methods, multi jet modeling (MJM), and micro-stereolithography (Micro-SLA).MATERIALS AND METHODSThirty study models were created using an acrylic model with the maxillary upper right canine, first premolar, and first molar teeth. Based on the scan files from a non-contact blue light scanner (Identica; Medit Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea), thirty cores were produced using the WBM, MJM, and Micro-SLA methods, respectively, and another thirty frameworks were produced using the CLWT method. To measure the marginal and internal gap, the silicone replica method was adopted, and the silicone images obtained were evaluated using a digital microscope (KH-7700; Hirox, Tokyo, Japan) at 140X magnification. Analyses were performed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test (α=.05).RESULTSThe mean marginal gaps and internal gaps showed significant differences according to tooth type (P<.001 and P<.001, respectively) and manufacturing method (P<.037 and P<.001, respectively). Micro-SLA did not show any significant difference from CLWT regarding mean marginal gap compared to the WBM and MJM methods.CONCLUSIONThe mean values of gaps resulting from the four different manufacturing methods were within a clinically allowable range, and, thus, the clinical use of additive manufacturing methods is acceptable as an alternative to the traditional lost wax-technique and subtractive manufacturing.

PURPOSEThis in vitro study aimed to analyze and compare the reproducibility of zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns manufactured by digital workflow.MATERIALS AND METHODSA typodont model with a prepped upper first molar was set in a phantom head, and a digital impression was obtained with a video intraoral scanner (CEREC Omnicam; Sirona GmbH), from which a single crown was designed and manufactured with CAD/CAM into a zirconia crown and lithium disilicate crown (n=12). Reproducibility of each crown was quantitatively retrieved by superimposing the digitized data of the crown in 3D inspection software, and differences were graphically mapped in color. Areas with large differences were analyzed with digital microscopy. Mean quadratic deviations (RMS) quantitatively obtained from each ceramic group were statistically analyzed with Student's t-test (α=.05).RESULTSThe RMS value of lithium disilicate crown was 29.2 (4.1) µm and 17.6 (5.5) µm on the outer and inner surfaces, respectively, whereas these values were 18.6 (2.0) µm and 20.6 (5.1) µm for the zirconia crown. Reproducibility of zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns had a statistically significant difference only on the outer surface (P<.001). The outer surface of lithium disilicate crown showed over-contouring on the buccal surface and under-contouring on the inner occlusal surface. The outer surface of zirconia crown showed both over- and under-contouring on the buccal surface, and the inner surface showed under-contouring in the marginal areas.CONCLUSIONRestoration manufacturing by digital workflow will enhance the reproducibility of zirconia single crowns more than that of lithium disilicate single crowns.