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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pompa, Giorgio, Di Carlo, Stefano, De Angelis, Francesca, Cristalli, Maria Paola, Annibali, Susanna
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