Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D‐printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D‐printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla via Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry Abstract Objective To compare in vitro the accuracy of fit of a reference prosthesis seated on three-dimensional (3D) printed casts generated from digital implant scans vs stone casts made by conventional implant impressions. Material and Methods A partially edentulous maxillary master cast with two internal connection implants was generated, while a reference implant-supported prosthesis was fabricated. Conventional splinted open-tray impressions were taken to create stone casts (n = 10) (control group). A digital scan was taken of the master cast using a white light intraoral optical scanner (IOS) (TRIOS, 3Shape), and a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file was obtained. Four 3D printers were used to print the casts (n = 10 from each 3D printer): Straumann® P30+, Varseo S, Form 3b+and M2 Carbon. Accuracy of fit of the reference prosthesis on all control and test casts was assessed using the screw resistance test and radiographic test. Additionally, all casts were digitized using the same IOS, and the STL files were superimposed to the master cast STL file (reference) to evaluate the 3D accuracy with inspection Geomagic Control software using the root-mean-square (RMS) error. Results The reference prosthesis presented with clinically acceptable fit on all casts. The highest median RMS error was found in the stone cast group (94.6 μm) while the lowest median was in the M2 Carbon group (46.9 μm). The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups (p < 0.001). For post hoc comparisons, Dunn's test with the Holm–Bonferroni correction resulted in a statistically significant difference in four tests, with M2 Carbon exhibiting lower RMS error than the stone cast (p < 0.001) and P30+ (p < 0.001) groups, Form 3b exhibiting lower RMS error than the stone cast (p < 0.001) group, and Varseo S exhibiting lower RMS error than the stone cast (p = 0.006) group. Conclusion Using the screw-resistance test and radiographic assessment, the reference prosthesis fit presented with clinically acceptable accuracy of fit on all casts. Printed casts from 3 different printers demonstrated statistically significant lower 3D deviations than stone casts generated using a conventional implant impression for the present partially edentulous scenario with two implants, but this did not affect prosthesis fit. Clinical Significance Even though there were 3D deviations between the master cast and all control and test casts generated from conventional impressions and digital scans respectively, the reference prosthesis presented with accurate fit on all casts. This indicates that there is a threshold for clinically acceptable accuracy of fit and that 3D-printed casts may be used as definitive master casts to fabricate implant-supported fixed dental prostheses for the partially edentulous anterior maxilla. View on Web

Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Study on the surface properties of different commercially available CAD/CAM materials for implant‐supported restorations

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader Study on the surface properties of different commercially available CAD/CAM materials for implant‐supported restorations via Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry Abstract Objective To determine if there are any differences in surface characteristics (surface roughness and contact angle) among different CAD/CAM materials indicated for fabricating implant-supported restorations, following all the material preparation protocols provided by the manufacturer. Materials and Methods One-hundred forty-four specimens were divided into six groups: RBC (resin-based composite), PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate), PEEK (polyether ether ketone), ZP (zirconia polished), ZG (zirconia glazed) and CoCr4 (CoCr4 alloy). The experimental part included surface roughness (SR) and contact angle of water (WCA) analyses, fulfilled with Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) view of surface topography. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test with a Dunn's post hoc analysis, the correlation between measurements was tested using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and all data were presented as mean ± SD. Results ZG specimens were significantly rougher compared to other groups (p ≤ 0.05). The WCA measurements revealed significantly lower mean values in ZG group (p ≤ 0.05), contrary to PEEK and CoCr4, where significantly higher mean values were observed, compared to other groups (p ≤ 0.05). There exist a moderate negative correlation between the SR and WCA (ρ = −0.41). AFM 3D and SEM 2D images presented more or less heterogeneous surface of all materials. Conclusions There were statistically significant differences in surface roughness and contact angle among tested material groups. Moderate negative correlation was found between surface roughness and contact angle of tested material groups. Clinical Significance The study gives us a better understanding of influence of physicochemical characteristics of investigated materials on their surface properties and provides useful knowledge for future researches in a view of material's behavior under in vivo conditions, when it comes to a question of features related to surface quality, such as microbial adhesion, corrosion, wear, biocompatibility and esthetics. View on Web

Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.