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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cantó-Navés, Oriol, Michels, Kyra, Figueras-Alvarez, Oscar, Fernández-Villar, Sandra, Cabratosa-Termes, Josep, Roig, Miguel
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