Erratum: Marginal Gap Evaluation of Metal Onlays and Resin Nanoceramic Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing Blocks Onlays

Hamid, Nor Faharina Abdul; Bakar, Wan Zaripah Wan; Ariffin, Zaihan

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1709086

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…direct view with optical or electronic scanning, used by eleven studies [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]; -indirect view on epoxy resin replicas, used by two studies [55,56]; -silicone replica technique and optical scanning, used by four studies [57][58][59][60]; -micro-CT analysis, used by two studies [61,62]; -silicone replica technique and 3D analysis, used by three studies [63,64]; -triple scan technique, used by one study [65]. Internal fit was assessed by 9 studies using one of the following methods:…”

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment Methods for Marginal and Internal Fit of Partial Crown Restorations: A Systematic Review

Di Fiore,

Zuccon,

Carraro

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Different methods are used for the analysis of marginal and internal fit of partial crowns, but not all of them are applicable for in vivo studies. The aim of this review is to search the available methods, described in the current literature, to assess marginal and internal fit in partial crowns. Methods: an electronic search was performed on Pubmed and Web of Science databases to find studies published from 1 January 2017 up to 2 March 2023, following PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews. The search strategy applied was: “(marginal) AND (fit OR gap OR adaptation OR discrepancy) AND (inlay OR onlay OR partial crown)”. In vitro studies which evaluated marginal and internal fit on CAD CAM or 3D printed partial crowns were included in this review. Quality of the studies was assessed by using Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies (QUIN tool). Results: 22 studies were included. Among conventional methods, direct view with microscope, indirect view on resin replicas, and silicone replica technique (SRT) were used. Considering new digital methods, micro-CT, SRT 3D and triple scan technique (TST) were applied. Conclusions: Among 2D methods, direct view technique is the most used marginal fit analysis. For a more comprehensive evaluation, a 3D digital analysis is suggested. SRT and indirect view are the only 2D methods available for in vivo analysis. A protocol for the application of TST for assessment in vivo is now available, but no studies are reported in literature yet.

show abstract

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment Methods for Marginal and Internal Fit of Partial Crown Restorations: A Systematic Review

Di Fiore,

Zuccon,

Carraro

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Digital casts can be virtually fabricated by capturing three-dimensional (3D) impressions through intraoral scanners, eliminating the need for stone cast fabrication. [1][2][3]. The selection of an appropriate 3D printer is complicated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and precession of 3d printed cast produced by two printing techniques

Babeer¹

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study analyses the tolerance and accuracy of 3D printed casts created by two printing techniques and cast geometry deformations after six months. MISC. Methodology. An A 28-year-old volunteer with full dentition was scanned using 3shape's TRIOS3. 3Shape's Dental System converted the scan to STL. NextDent 5100 DLP and Forms Lab Form 2 SLA printers received the STL file. Each printer made 10 casts. Every cast was scanned using a 3Shape E3 Scanner (E3 Scanner from 3Shape). A cloud comparison tool compared each scan to the volunteer's original scan. The two printers' accuracy was measured at the time of the scan and six months afterward using IBM's SPSS 28 for a one-way ANOVA. Shapiro Wilk statistics were not significant P> 0.05, proving normality. ANOVA was used to compare printers' accuracy. Results. Table 1 shows the means and SDs. Wilk's Lambda of p.05 (F = 95.533 and partial eta squared = 0.841) reveals an initial and six-month accuracy difference. A P 0.05 within-subject’s tolerance effect was found. P=.503 demonstrates printer type doesn't affect participation. The study's mean was.995, with a standard error of.066 and CI of.856 to 1.134. Conclusion. The accuracy measurement decreased significantly between the initial and six-month measurements. There was no difference in accuracy between the two measurements for either printer. There was a statistically significant difference between each cast and each printer's first STL file information. However, the distinction was within the accepted tolerance of -/+ 42 µm (Envision TEC reported an accepted tolerance level).

show abstract

Erratum: Marginal Gap Evaluation of Metal Onlays and Resin Nanoceramic Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing Blocks Onlays

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Assessment Methods for Marginal and Internal Fit of Partial Crown Restorations: A Systematic Review

Assessment Methods for Marginal and Internal Fit of Partial Crown Restorations: A Systematic Review

Accuracy and precession of 3d printed cast produced by two printing techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About