The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Clinical outcomes of anterior diastema closures with resin injection technique using a 3D printed template: A clinical study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Shui Yusen, Wu Jiacheng, Yin Zhicheng, Yu Haiyang
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Evidence on the clinical outcomes and accuracy of a 3-dimensionally (3D) printed template for the resin injection technique is limited.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of a 3D printed template-guided composite resin injection technique for anterior diastema closure and compare the accuracy of two 3D printed templates: rigid resin templates with flexible silicone index (RTFS) and separate rigid templates (SRT).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 32 participants with 54 diastemas received 84 flowable composite resin restorations using either RTFS (n=42) or SRT (n=42). Digital wax patterns were derived from preoperative intraoral scans (Scan1). Postinjection (Scan2) and postpolishing (Scan3) scans were superimposed to calculate root mean square (RMS) deviations (Deviation1: Digital wax patterns-Scan2; Deviation2: Digital wax patterns-Scan3). Clinical performance, including esthetics, function, and biological properties, at 12-month follow-up was assessed using International Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. The root mean square (RMS) data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, Levene test, 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test (α=.05). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess the effect of templates on esthetic, functional, and biological properties (α=.05).
RESULTS: RTFS and SRT both showed better accuracy after immediate injection with mean ±standard deviation Deviation1=0.11 ±0.02 mm and 0.11 ±0.03 mm, respectively, while SRT yielded significantly higher Deviation2 (0.15 ±0.03 mm) than that of RTFS (0.12 ±0.02 mm) (P<.001) after polishing. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding esthetic, functional and biological properties (all P>.05). All restorations scored within 3, with over 90% scoring 1 for all properties.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this 12-month study, both 3D printed templates demonstrated comparable clinical performance for anterior diastema closure, and the RTFS-guided resin injection technique had better accuracy than SRT after polishing.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of a 3D printed template-guided composite resin injection technique for anterior diastema closure and compare the accuracy of two 3D printed templates: rigid resin templates with flexible silicone index (RTFS) and separate rigid templates (SRT).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 32 participants with 54 diastemas received 84 flowable composite resin restorations using either RTFS (n=42) or SRT (n=42). Digital wax patterns were derived from preoperative intraoral scans (Scan1). Postinjection (Scan2) and postpolishing (Scan3) scans were superimposed to calculate root mean square (RMS) deviations (Deviation1: Digital wax patterns-Scan2; Deviation2: Digital wax patterns-Scan3). Clinical performance, including esthetics, function, and biological properties, at 12-month follow-up was assessed using International Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. The root mean square (RMS) data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, Levene test, 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test (α=.05). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess the effect of templates on esthetic, functional, and biological properties (α=.05).
RESULTS: RTFS and SRT both showed better accuracy after immediate injection with mean ±standard deviation Deviation1=0.11 ±0.02 mm and 0.11 ±0.03 mm, respectively, while SRT yielded significantly higher Deviation2 (0.15 ±0.03 mm) than that of RTFS (0.12 ±0.02 mm) (P<.001) after polishing. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding esthetic, functional and biological properties (all P>.05). All restorations scored within 3, with over 90% scoring 1 for all properties.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this 12-month study, both 3D printed templates demonstrated comparable clinical performance for anterior diastema closure, and the RTFS-guided resin injection technique had better accuracy than SRT after polishing.