Comparative Evaluation of Retention and Vertical Marginal Accuracy of Co–Cr Copings Fabricated Using Three Different Techniques: An In Vitro Study

Sabane, Ajay V; Kadam, Pankaj; Patil, Rupali; Kalsekar, Bhagyashree G; Gandhi, Paresh V; Bhosale, Nishita S

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3399

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Afterward, 12 articles were excluded because 5 studies analyzed the marginal and internal discrepancy values after completing ceramic veneering procedures, 1 investigation did not provide the quantitatively measured marginal and internal discrepancies, 3 studies did not provide the manufacturer of the metal printer used to fabricate the specimens, and 3 studies did not test metal AM techniques. A total of 31 articles (30 in vitro [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] and 1 clinical 54 ) were included in the present systematic review.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The selected articles were classified based on the evaluation method used to assess the fit of the Co-Cr frameworks, namely manufacturing accuracy, 35,36 the dual-scan 37,38 and triple-scan method, 39 stereomicroscope, [40][41][42][43][44][45] optical coordinate measurement machine (CMM), 46 microCT, 47,48 profilometer, 49 and silicone replica technique. [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] Additionally, each group was subdivided into six subgroups based on the manufacturer used to fabricate the SLM Co-Cr frameworks, namely 3D Systems, 35,62 Bego, 51,54 Concept Laser, [37][38][39]41,42,47,48,52,56,58 EOS, 36,40,…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies analyzed the marginal and internal discrepancies of the specimens using a stereomicroscope. [40][41][42][43][44][45] Two different SLM printer manufacturers were tested among the studies, namely EOS 40,[43][44][45] and Concept Laser. 41,42 Among the studies that tested EOS, three of them used the same EOS printer (EOS EOSINT M270) [43][44][45] but different Co-Cr powders (not provided, 43 SP2, 44 and MP 145 from EOS).…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[40][41][42][43][44][45] Two different SLM printer manufacturers were tested among the studies, namely EOS 40,[43][44][45] and Concept Laser. 41,42 Among the studies that tested EOS, three of them used the same EOS printer (EOS EOSINT M270) [43][44][45] but different Co-Cr powders (not provided, 43 SP2, 44 and MP 145 from EOS). Disparities on the printer and Co-Cr powder were also found between the two studies that used a Concept Laser manufacturing method 41,42 (see Table 3).…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disparities on the printer and Co-Cr powder were also found between the two studies that used a Concept Laser manufacturing method 41,42 (see Table 3). Additionally, research methodology disparities were found among the studies, including geometry of the restoration tested (crown [41][42][43][44][45] or three-unit fixed dental prosthesis 40 ), digitizing methods, and cement used (see Table 3). Except for one group of the Al-Saleh et al study (radial shoulder group with a mean 167 ± 28 µm), all studies reported marginal and internal mean discrepancies lower than 120 µm.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Influence of the Manufacturing Trinomial (Technology, Printer, and Material) on the Marginal and Internal Discrepancies of Printed Metal Frameworks for the Fabrication of Tooth-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Revilla-León,

Gómez-Polo,

Barmak

et al. 2024

Int J Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the influence of fabrication method (conventional, subtractive, and additive procedures) and manufacturing trinomial (technology, printer, and material combination) on the marginal and internal fit of cobaltchromium (Co-Cr) tooth-supported frameworks. Materials and Methods: An electronic systematic review was performed in five data bases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, World of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. Studies that reported the marginal and internal discrepancies of tooth-supported Co-Cr additive manufacturing (AM) frameworks were included. Two authors independently completed the quality assessment of the studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies. A third examiner was consulted to resolve lack of consensus. Results: A total of 31 articles were included and classified based on the evaluation method: manufacturing accuracy, the dual- or triple-scan method, stereomicroscope, optical coordinate measurement machine, microCT, profilometer, and silicone replica. Six subgroups were created: 3D Systems, Bego, Concept Laser, EOS, Kulzer, and Sisma. Due to the heterogeneity and limited data available, only the silicone replica group was considered for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a mean marginal discrepancy of 91.09 μm (I2 = 95%, P < .001) in the conventional group, 77.48 μm (I2 = 99%, P < .001) in the milling group, and 82.92 μm (I2 = 98%, P < .001) in the printing group. Additionally, a mean internal discrepancy of 111.29 μm (I2 = 94%, P < .001) was obtained in the conventional casting group, 121.96 μm (I2 = 100%, P < .001) in the milling group, and 121.25 μm (I2 = 99%, P < .001) in the printing group. Conclusions: Manufacturing method and selective laser melting (SLM) metal manufacturing trinomial did not impact the marginal and internal discrepancies of Co-Cr frameworks for the fabrication of tooth-supported restorations.

show abstract