Cargando…
In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Adaptation between Printed and Milled Onlays
Statement of problem: Nowadays, milling is still the gold standard for fabricating indirect restorations, but to overcome its disadvantages, there are alternatives, such as 3D printing. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the gaps between the prepared tooth and milled and printed onlays fabricated...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10650727/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37959559 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma16216962 |
_version_ | 1785135847238008832 |
---|---|
author | Cantó-Navés, Oriol Michels, Kyra Figueras-Alvarez, Oscar Fernández-Villar, Sandra Cabratosa-Termes, Josep Roig, Miguel |
author_facet | Cantó-Navés, Oriol Michels, Kyra Figueras-Alvarez, Oscar Fernández-Villar, Sandra Cabratosa-Termes, Josep Roig, Miguel |
author_sort | Cantó-Navés, Oriol |
collection | PubMed |
description | Statement of problem: Nowadays, milling is still the gold standard for fabricating indirect restorations, but to overcome its disadvantages, there are alternatives, such as 3D printing. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the gaps between the prepared tooth and milled and printed onlays fabricated with the same CAD design. It also aimed to determine the gap reproducibility across onlays fabricated by 3D printing and milling. Methods: A resin tooth was prepared for an onlay. After scanning the preparation, an onlay was designed with proprietary dental software. Next, 22 onlays were milled in a graphene-reinforced PMMA disc (Group 1), and 22 onlays were 3D-printed with a hybrid composite material (Group 2). After that, all fabricated restorations were scanned and superimposed on the scanned prepared resin tooth. Subsequently, a specific software was used to measure the margin, central, and intaglio-located gap between the milled or printed restoration and the preparation. Finally, measurements were compared with a multifactor analysis of variance. Results: The results demonstrated that printed onlays (Group 2) adapted better to the prepared tooth than the milled ones (Group 1) (p < 0.05). The comparison of standard deviations showed the better gap reproducibility of printed onlays (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study concluded that the printed onlays adapted significantly better to the prepared tooth than the milled onlays. Printed onlays also showed significantly better gap reproducibility. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10650727 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106507272023-10-30 In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Adaptation between Printed and Milled Onlays Cantó-Navés, Oriol Michels, Kyra Figueras-Alvarez, Oscar Fernández-Villar, Sandra Cabratosa-Termes, Josep Roig, Miguel Materials (Basel) Article Statement of problem: Nowadays, milling is still the gold standard for fabricating indirect restorations, but to overcome its disadvantages, there are alternatives, such as 3D printing. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the gaps between the prepared tooth and milled and printed onlays fabricated with the same CAD design. It also aimed to determine the gap reproducibility across onlays fabricated by 3D printing and milling. Methods: A resin tooth was prepared for an onlay. After scanning the preparation, an onlay was designed with proprietary dental software. Next, 22 onlays were milled in a graphene-reinforced PMMA disc (Group 1), and 22 onlays were 3D-printed with a hybrid composite material (Group 2). After that, all fabricated restorations were scanned and superimposed on the scanned prepared resin tooth. Subsequently, a specific software was used to measure the margin, central, and intaglio-located gap between the milled or printed restoration and the preparation. Finally, measurements were compared with a multifactor analysis of variance. Results: The results demonstrated that printed onlays (Group 2) adapted better to the prepared tooth than the milled ones (Group 1) (p < 0.05). The comparison of standard deviations showed the better gap reproducibility of printed onlays (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study concluded that the printed onlays adapted significantly better to the prepared tooth than the milled onlays. Printed onlays also showed significantly better gap reproducibility. MDPI 2023-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10650727/ /pubmed/37959559 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma16216962 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Cantó-Navés, Oriol Michels, Kyra Figueras-Alvarez, Oscar Fernández-Villar, Sandra Cabratosa-Termes, Josep Roig, Miguel In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Adaptation between Printed and Milled Onlays |
title | In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Adaptation between Printed and Milled Onlays |
title_full | In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Adaptation between Printed and Milled Onlays |
title_fullStr | In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Adaptation between Printed and Milled Onlays |
title_full_unstemmed | In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Adaptation between Printed and Milled Onlays |
title_short | In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Adaptation between Printed and Milled Onlays |
title_sort | in vitro comparison of internal and marginal adaptation between printed and milled onlays |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10650727/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37959559 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma16216962 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cantonavesoriol invitrocomparisonofinternalandmarginaladaptationbetweenprintedandmilledonlays AT michelskyra invitrocomparisonofinternalandmarginaladaptationbetweenprintedandmilledonlays AT figuerasalvarezoscar invitrocomparisonofinternalandmarginaladaptationbetweenprintedandmilledonlays AT fernandezvillarsandra invitrocomparisonofinternalandmarginaladaptationbetweenprintedandmilledonlays AT cabratosatermesjosep invitrocomparisonofinternalandmarginaladaptationbetweenprintedandmilledonlays AT roigmiguel invitrocomparisonofinternalandmarginaladaptationbetweenprintedandmilledonlays |