The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Influence of postprocessing cleaning solution on the margin quality, fabrication trueness, and intaglio fit of additively manufactured definitive resin-based crowns.
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.
Maldonado Paola, Mosaddad Seyed Ali, Sabatini Gabriela Panca, Güven Guven Mehmet Esad, Molinero-Mourelle Pedro, Yilmaz Burak, Çakmak Gülce
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The influence of postprocessing cleaning solutions on the trueness and fit of additively manufactured (AM) definitive crowns fabricated from different photopolymer resins remains unclear.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate how different postprocessing cleaning solutions affect the fabrication trueness, marginal quality, and intaglio fit of crowns fabricated from 2 photopolymer resins using additive manufacturing.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-six crowns were printed using either a urethane acrylate (UA)-based resin or a composite resin (CR) and then subdivided into 4 cleaning groups: ethanol (96%), isopropanol (98%), water-based solution, and methyl ether-based solvent. Each crown underwent digital surface scanning, and trueness was measured by using the root-mean-square (RMS) metric for occlusal, external, intaglio, marginal, and overall surfaces. Intaglio fit was assessed by using a triple-scan protocol (TSP) to measure average gap values (AGVs). Statistical analyses included the Shapiro-Wilk test, Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) for trueness and AGVs, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests for margin quality, and Spearman rank correlation for association analysis (α=.05).
RESULTS: Significant differences were found for both resin type and cleaning solution (P<.001). CR crowns showed higher trueness than UA crowns across all outer surfaces (P<.023), with the UA-S group exhibiting the lowest trueness values. Alcohol-based cleaning was associated with higher marginal trueness (P<.001), with CR-E and CR-I showing the highest marginal trueness values (27.3 ±6.4 and 26.9 ±6.2 µm; P<.015). AGVs were also affected by the cleaning solution (P<.001). Water-based and methyl ether-based solvent-cleaned groups showed smaller AGVs, indicating better intaglio fit, whereas crowns cleaned with ethanol or isopropanol showed larger AGVs. AGVs were negatively correlated with intaglio trueness (ρ=-0.47) and marginal trueness (ρ=-0.65) (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Both the cleaning solution and the resin type significantly influenced the trueness and fit of crowns. While alcohol-based solutions were associated with higher marginal trueness, water-based and methyl ether-based solvent cleaning yielded better intaglio fit. Composite resin crowns demonstrated more favorable trueness and margin quality than urethane acrylate crowns.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate how different postprocessing cleaning solutions affect the fabrication trueness, marginal quality, and intaglio fit of crowns fabricated from 2 photopolymer resins using additive manufacturing.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-six crowns were printed using either a urethane acrylate (UA)-based resin or a composite resin (CR) and then subdivided into 4 cleaning groups: ethanol (96%), isopropanol (98%), water-based solution, and methyl ether-based solvent. Each crown underwent digital surface scanning, and trueness was measured by using the root-mean-square (RMS) metric for occlusal, external, intaglio, marginal, and overall surfaces. Intaglio fit was assessed by using a triple-scan protocol (TSP) to measure average gap values (AGVs). Statistical analyses included the Shapiro-Wilk test, Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) for trueness and AGVs, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests for margin quality, and Spearman rank correlation for association analysis (α=.05).
RESULTS: Significant differences were found for both resin type and cleaning solution (P<.001). CR crowns showed higher trueness than UA crowns across all outer surfaces (P<.023), with the UA-S group exhibiting the lowest trueness values. Alcohol-based cleaning was associated with higher marginal trueness (P<.001), with CR-E and CR-I showing the highest marginal trueness values (27.3 ±6.4 and 26.9 ±6.2 µm; P<.015). AGVs were also affected by the cleaning solution (P<.001). Water-based and methyl ether-based solvent-cleaned groups showed smaller AGVs, indicating better intaglio fit, whereas crowns cleaned with ethanol or isopropanol showed larger AGVs. AGVs were negatively correlated with intaglio trueness (ρ=-0.47) and marginal trueness (ρ=-0.65) (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Both the cleaning solution and the resin type significantly influenced the trueness and fit of crowns. While alcohol-based solutions were associated with higher marginal trueness, water-based and methyl ether-based solvent cleaning yielded better intaglio fit. Composite resin crowns demonstrated more favorable trueness and margin quality than urethane acrylate crowns.