[EO-24] Marginal fit of 3D-printed three-unit prosthesis according to build orientation and layer thickness
[Abstract]
[Objective]
The purpose of this study was to analyze the marginal fit of three-unit resin prostheses printed with the Digital Light Processing (DLP) method in two build orientations and two-layer thicknesses.
[Method]
In this study, the marginal fit of three-unit resin prostheses was evaluated. Notably, the smallest and largest values for marginal gap (MG) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were recorded for both premolar and molar regions. Comparing build orientations, 45° showed smaller values than 60°. However, layer thickness did not significantly impact MG or AMD.
[Results and Discussion]
The marginal fit of three-unit resin prostheses was evaluated. Notably, the smallest and largest values for marginal gap (MG) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were recorded for both premolar and molar regions. Specific points near the pontic area (P2, P3, P4 in premolar; M2, M3, M4 in molar) exhibited significantly larger margins. Comparing build orientations, 45° showed smaller values than 60°. However, layer thickness did not significantly impact MG or AMD. Overall, the study provides insights into optimizing material selection for successful anterior crowns. (MG): Smallest premolar MG: 21.6 µm (±9), Largest premolar MG: 62.9 µm (±3), Smallest molar MG: 22.9 µm (±6), Largest molar MG: 70.8 µm (±20). (AMD): Smallest premolar AMD: 27.1 µm (±0.7), Largest premolar AMD: 96.1 µm (±4.3), Smallest molar AMD: 28 µm (±2.5), Largest molar AMD: 91 µm (±16.2).
[References]
1) Mitchell CA, Pintado MR, Douglas WH. Nondestructive, in vitro quantification of crown margins. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85(6):575-584. doi:10.1067/mpr.2001.114268.
2) Danesh G, Lippold C,Mischke KL, et al. Polymerization characteristics of light- and auto-curing resins for individual splints. Dent Mater. 2006;22(5):426-433. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.032.
3) Nawafleh NA, Mack F, Evans J, Mackay J, Hatamleh MM. Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review. J Prosthodont. 2013;22(5):419-428. doi:10.1111/jopr.12006. 4) Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(11):853-874. doi:10.1111/joor.12205. 5) Mously HA, Finkelman M, Zandparsa R, Hirayama H. Marginal and internal adaptation of ceramic crown restorations fabricated with CAD/CAM technology and the heat-press technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(2):249-256. doi:10.1016/j. prosdent.2014.03.017.
[Objective]
The purpose of this study was to analyze the marginal fit of three-unit resin prostheses printed with the Digital Light Processing (DLP) method in two build orientations and two-layer thicknesses.
[Method]
In this study, the marginal fit of three-unit resin prostheses was evaluated. Notably, the smallest and largest values for marginal gap (MG) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were recorded for both premolar and molar regions. Comparing build orientations, 45° showed smaller values than 60°. However, layer thickness did not significantly impact MG or AMD.
[Results and Discussion]
The marginal fit of three-unit resin prostheses was evaluated. Notably, the smallest and largest values for marginal gap (MG) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were recorded for both premolar and molar regions. Specific points near the pontic area (P2, P3, P4 in premolar; M2, M3, M4 in molar) exhibited significantly larger margins. Comparing build orientations, 45° showed smaller values than 60°. However, layer thickness did not significantly impact MG or AMD. Overall, the study provides insights into optimizing material selection for successful anterior crowns. (MG): Smallest premolar MG: 21.6 µm (±9), Largest premolar MG: 62.9 µm (±3), Smallest molar MG: 22.9 µm (±6), Largest molar MG: 70.8 µm (±20). (AMD): Smallest premolar AMD: 27.1 µm (±0.7), Largest premolar AMD: 96.1 µm (±4.3), Smallest molar AMD: 28 µm (±2.5), Largest molar AMD: 91 µm (±16.2).
[References]
1) Mitchell CA, Pintado MR, Douglas WH. Nondestructive, in vitro quantification of crown margins. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85(6):575-584. doi:10.1067/mpr.2001.114268.
2) Danesh G, Lippold C,Mischke KL, et al. Polymerization characteristics of light- and auto-curing resins for individual splints. Dent Mater. 2006;22(5):426-433. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.032.
3) Nawafleh NA, Mack F, Evans J, Mackay J, Hatamleh MM. Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review. J Prosthodont. 2013;22(5):419-428. doi:10.1111/jopr.12006. 4) Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(11):853-874. doi:10.1111/joor.12205. 5) Mously HA, Finkelman M, Zandparsa R, Hirayama H. Marginal and internal adaptation of ceramic crown restorations fabricated with CAD/CAM technology and the heat-press technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(2):249-256. doi:10.1016/j. prosdent.2014.03.017.