Marginal discrepancy of noble metal-ceramic fixed dental prosthesis frameworks fabricated by conventional and digital technologies

Evaluation of marginal adaptation in three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and powder-free digital impression techniques

“…In Group Ci, the obtained mean marginal misfit values of frameworks were 93.59 µm (± 16.82) for canine, 104.10 µm (± 15.02) for premolar abutment teeth and 98.84 µm (± 16.43) for the average of both abutments. These results were found to be consistent with similar studies 11313537…”

“…However, this technology has variables that can influence the results of the manufacturing process, such as scanning protocols, software design, and material processing. For this reason, inconsistencies may be seen among the results of studies that test the marginal misfits of CAD/CAM supported frameworks 31. On the other hand, some authors have reported that molar abutments in digitally fabricated frameworks have greater misfits than premolar abutments in the same specimen tested.…”

“…Numerous studies evaluating the marginal and/or internal adaptation of single-unit dental restorations fabricated with digital impression systems are available in the literature,21314151630 but a small number of studies are about marginal misfit of three-unit metal frameworks fabricated with different impression techniques 1829. The number of studies evaluating the marginal misfit of three-unit frameworks fabricated with different impression techniques is small and the results of the studies are incompatible 182931. In some studies, it was reported that there is inconsistency between the marginal misfits of different abutment teeth in the frameworks fabricated with the same impression technique 233132.…”

“…The number of studies evaluating the marginal misfit of three-unit frameworks fabricated with different impression techniques is small and the results of the studies are incompatible 182931. In some studies, it was reported that there is inconsistency between the marginal misfits of different abutment teeth in the frameworks fabricated with the same impression technique 233132. However, incompatible data are insufficient to reach consensus on this issue 2332.…”

Marginal Discrepancy of Single Implant-Supported Metal Copings Fabricated by Various CAD/CAM and Conventional Techniques Using Different Materials

“…22 Recent studies have reported contradictory results for the marginal discrepancy of restorations made by different methods. 23,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Several studies reported greater marginal discrepancies in restorations fabricated by the CAD/CAM systems, 23,[25][26][27][28][29] while others showed greater values in restorations made by conventional methods, [30][31][32][33] or even reported no significant differences 34 (►Table 1). The present study aimed to compare the marginal discrepancy of single implant-supported frameworks fabricated by different materials, using additive conventional/computerized and subtractive computerized methods.…”