Cargando…
Comparison of Conventional Methods and Laser-Assisted Rapid Prototyping for Manufacturing Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study
This study assessed whether there are differences in marginal fit between laser-fusion and conventional techniques to produce fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). A master steel die with 2 abutments was produced to receive a posterior 4-unit FDPs and single copings. These experimental models were divided...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26576419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/318097 |
_version_ | 1782398913287815168 |
---|---|
author | Pompa, Giorgio Di Carlo, Stefano De Angelis, Francesca Cristalli, Maria Paola Annibali, Susanna |
author_facet | Pompa, Giorgio Di Carlo, Stefano De Angelis, Francesca Cristalli, Maria Paola Annibali, Susanna |
author_sort | Pompa, Giorgio |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study assessed whether there are differences in marginal fit between laser-fusion and conventional techniques to produce fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). A master steel die with 2 abutments was produced to receive a posterior 4-unit FDPs and single copings. These experimental models were divided into three groups (n = 20/group) manufactured: group 1, Ni-Cr alloy, with a lost-wax casting technique; group 2, Co-Cr alloy, with selective laser melting (SLM); and group 3, yttria-tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP), with a milling system. All specimens were cut along the longitudinal axis and their adaptation was measured at the marginal and shoulder areas on the right and left sides of each abutment. Measurements were made using a stereomicroscope (×60 magnification) and a scanning electron microscope (×800 magnification). The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni post hoc test, with a significance cutoff of 5%. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between group 3 and the other groups. The marginal opening was smallest with Co-Cr alloy substructures, while the shoulder opening was smallest with Ni-Cr alloy substructures. Within the limitations of this study, the marginal fit of an FDP is better with rapid prototyping (RP) via SLM than conventional manufacturing systems. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4631850 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46318502015-11-16 Comparison of Conventional Methods and Laser-Assisted Rapid Prototyping for Manufacturing Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study Pompa, Giorgio Di Carlo, Stefano De Angelis, Francesca Cristalli, Maria Paola Annibali, Susanna Biomed Res Int Research Article This study assessed whether there are differences in marginal fit between laser-fusion and conventional techniques to produce fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). A master steel die with 2 abutments was produced to receive a posterior 4-unit FDPs and single copings. These experimental models were divided into three groups (n = 20/group) manufactured: group 1, Ni-Cr alloy, with a lost-wax casting technique; group 2, Co-Cr alloy, with selective laser melting (SLM); and group 3, yttria-tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP), with a milling system. All specimens were cut along the longitudinal axis and their adaptation was measured at the marginal and shoulder areas on the right and left sides of each abutment. Measurements were made using a stereomicroscope (×60 magnification) and a scanning electron microscope (×800 magnification). The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni post hoc test, with a significance cutoff of 5%. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between group 3 and the other groups. The marginal opening was smallest with Co-Cr alloy substructures, while the shoulder opening was smallest with Ni-Cr alloy substructures. Within the limitations of this study, the marginal fit of an FDP is better with rapid prototyping (RP) via SLM than conventional manufacturing systems. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4631850/ /pubmed/26576419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/318097 Text en Copyright © 2015 Giorgio Pompa et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Pompa, Giorgio Di Carlo, Stefano De Angelis, Francesca Cristalli, Maria Paola Annibali, Susanna Comparison of Conventional Methods and Laser-Assisted Rapid Prototyping for Manufacturing Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study |
title | Comparison of Conventional Methods and Laser-Assisted Rapid Prototyping for Manufacturing Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study |
title_full | Comparison of Conventional Methods and Laser-Assisted Rapid Prototyping for Manufacturing Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Conventional Methods and Laser-Assisted Rapid Prototyping for Manufacturing Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Conventional Methods and Laser-Assisted Rapid Prototyping for Manufacturing Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study |
title_short | Comparison of Conventional Methods and Laser-Assisted Rapid Prototyping for Manufacturing Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study |
title_sort | comparison of conventional methods and laser-assisted rapid prototyping for manufacturing fixed dental prostheses: an in vitro study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26576419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/318097 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pompagiorgio comparisonofconventionalmethodsandlaserassistedrapidprototypingformanufacturingfixeddentalprosthesesaninvitrostudy AT dicarlostefano comparisonofconventionalmethodsandlaserassistedrapidprototypingformanufacturingfixeddentalprosthesesaninvitrostudy AT deangelisfrancesca comparisonofconventionalmethodsandlaserassistedrapidprototypingformanufacturingfixeddentalprosthesesaninvitrostudy AT cristallimariapaola comparisonofconventionalmethodsandlaserassistedrapidprototypingformanufacturingfixeddentalprosthesesaninvitrostudy AT annibalisusanna comparisonofconventionalmethodsandlaserassistedrapidprototypingformanufacturingfixeddentalprosthesesaninvitrostudy |