Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2023
Effect of a new support design on the marginal and internal gap of additively manufactured interim crowns using direct light deposition technology.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khanlar Leila Nasiry, Francis Claire, Basir Barmak Abdul, Rios Alma L Salazar, Ashtiani Reza Eftekhar, Zandinejad Amirali
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the design and location of supporting structures on the marginal and internal gap of interim restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mandibular right first molar resin tooth was prepared for a full coverage crown and scanned using a laboratory scanner (3Shape D900). The scanned data were converted into standard tessellation language (STL) format and an indirect prosthesis was designed using computer-aided design (CAD) software (exocad DentalCAD). The STL file was used to fabricate a total of 60 crowns with a 3D printer (EnvisionTEC Vida HD). The crowns were printed using E-Dent C&B MH resin and divided into 4 groups based on four different support structure designs, including supports on the occlusal (0° group), buccal and occlusal (45° group), buccal (90° group), and a new design consisting of horizontal bars placed on all surfaces and line angles (Bar) (n = 15). The silicone replica technique was used to determine the gap discrepancy. Fifty measurements were obtained for each specimen to examine the marginal and internal gaps by using a digital microscope (Olympus SZX16) at ×70 magnification. Additionally, the marginal discrepancy at different locations of the tested crowns, including buccal (B), lingual (L), mesial (M), and distal (D), as well as the maximum and minimum marginal gap intervals among groups, were analyzed. The collected data were analyzed using factorial ANOVA, followed by the Tukey HSD test for multiple comparisons (a = 0.05).
RESULTS: There was a significant difference in marginal and internal gaps among the groups (p < 0.001). The buccal placement supports (90° group) had the least marginal and internal discrepancies (p < 0.001). The new design group showed the highest marginal and internal gap. The marginal discrepancy in different locations of the tested crowns (B, L, M, D) was found to be significantly different among the groups (p < 0.001). The mesial margin of the Bar group had the largest marginal gap, whereas the buccal margin of the 90° group had the lowest marginal gap. The new design had a significantly smaller difference between the maximum and minimum marginal gap intervals than other groups (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The location and design of the supporting structures affected the marginal and internal gaps of an interim crown. The buccal placement of supporting bars (90° printing orientation) showed the smallest mean internal and marginal discrepancies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mandibular right first molar resin tooth was prepared for a full coverage crown and scanned using a laboratory scanner (3Shape D900). The scanned data were converted into standard tessellation language (STL) format and an indirect prosthesis was designed using computer-aided design (CAD) software (exocad DentalCAD). The STL file was used to fabricate a total of 60 crowns with a 3D printer (EnvisionTEC Vida HD). The crowns were printed using E-Dent C&B MH resin and divided into 4 groups based on four different support structure designs, including supports on the occlusal (0° group), buccal and occlusal (45° group), buccal (90° group), and a new design consisting of horizontal bars placed on all surfaces and line angles (Bar) (n = 15). The silicone replica technique was used to determine the gap discrepancy. Fifty measurements were obtained for each specimen to examine the marginal and internal gaps by using a digital microscope (Olympus SZX16) at ×70 magnification. Additionally, the marginal discrepancy at different locations of the tested crowns, including buccal (B), lingual (L), mesial (M), and distal (D), as well as the maximum and minimum marginal gap intervals among groups, were analyzed. The collected data were analyzed using factorial ANOVA, followed by the Tukey HSD test for multiple comparisons (a = 0.05).
RESULTS: There was a significant difference in marginal and internal gaps among the groups (p < 0.001). The buccal placement supports (90° group) had the least marginal and internal discrepancies (p < 0.001). The new design group showed the highest marginal and internal gap. The marginal discrepancy in different locations of the tested crowns (B, L, M, D) was found to be significantly different among the groups (p < 0.001). The mesial margin of the Bar group had the largest marginal gap, whereas the buccal margin of the 90° group had the lowest marginal gap. The new design had a significantly smaller difference between the maximum and minimum marginal gap intervals than other groups (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The location and design of the supporting structures affected the marginal and internal gaps of an interim crown. The buccal placement of supporting bars (90° printing orientation) showed the smallest mean internal and marginal discrepancies.