Department of Buccofacial Prostheses, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 Jul 1;17(4):e610-7. doi: 10.4317/medoral.17997.
This study aimed to evaluate the vertical discrepancy of implant-supported crown structures constructed with vacuum-casting and Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) technologies, and luted with different cement types.
Crown copings were fabricated using: (1) direct metal laser sintered Co-Cr (LS); (2) vacuum-cast Co-Cr (CC); and (3) vacuum-cast Ti (CT). Frameworks were luted onto machined implant abutments under constant seating pressure. Each alloy group was randomly divided into 5 subgroups (n = 10 each) according to the cement system utilized: Subgroup 1 (KC) used resin-modified glass-ionomer Ketac Cem Plus; Subgroup 2 (PF) used Panavia F 2.0 dual-cure resin cement; Subgroup 3 (RXU) used RelyX Unicem 2 Automix self-adhesive dual-cure resin cement; Subgroup 4 (PIC) used acrylic/urethane-based temporary Premier Implant Cement; and Subgroup 5 (DT) used acrylic/urethane-based temporary DentoTemp cement. Vertical misfit was measured by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Two-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were run to investigate the effect of alloy/fabrication technique, and cement type on vertical misfit. The statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.
The alloy/manufacturing technique and the luting cement affected the vertical discrepancy (p < 0.001). For each cement type, LS samples exhibited the best fit (p < 0.01) whereas CC and CT frames were statistically similar. Within each alloy group, PF and RXU provided comparably greater discrepancies than KC, PIC, and DT, which showed no differences.
Laser sintering may be an alternative to vacuum-casting of base metals to obtain passive-fitting implant-supported crown copings. The best marginal adaptation corresponded to laser sintered structures luted with glass-ionomer KC, or temporary PIC or DT cements. The highest discrepancies were recorded for Co-Cr and Ti cast frameworks bonded with PF or RXU resinous agents. All groups were within the clinically acceptable misfit range.
本研究旨在评估使用真空铸造和直接金属激光烧结（DMLS）技术构建的种植体支持的冠结构的垂直差异，并比较不同的粘结剂类型。
使用以下方法制作冠修复体：（1）直接金属激光烧结 Co-Cr（LS）；（2）真空铸造 Co-Cr（CC）；和（3）真空铸造 Ti（CT）。将框架在恒定的就位压力下粘结到加工的种植体基台上。每个合金组根据使用的粘结剂系统随机分为 5 个亚组（每组 10 个）：亚组 1（KC）使用树脂改性玻璃离子体 Ketac Cem Plus；亚组 2（PF）使用 Panavia F 2.0 双固化树脂粘结剂；亚组 3（RXU）使用 RelyX Unicem 2 Automix 自粘结双固化树脂粘结剂；亚组 4（PIC）使用丙烯酸/氨酯基临时 Premier Implant Cement；亚组 5（DT）使用丙烯酸/氨酯基临时 DentoTemp 水泥。使用扫描电子显微镜（SEM）测量垂直不匹配。使用双向方差分析和 Student-Newman-Keuls 检验来研究合金/制造技术和粘结剂类型对垂直不匹配的影响。统计显著性设为α=0.05。
合金/制造技术和粘结剂类型对垂直差异有影响（p<0.001）。对于每种粘结剂类型，LS 样本的拟合效果最好（p<0.01），而 CC 和 CT 框架在统计学上相似。在每个合金组内，PF 和 RXU 提供的差异大于 KC、PIC 和 DT，而后者之间没有差异。
激光烧结可能是替代真空铸造基底金属以获得被动拟合种植体支持的冠修复体的一种方法。最佳边缘适应性对应于用玻璃离子体 KC、临时 PIC 或 DT 水泥粘结的激光烧结结构。Co-Cr 和 Ti 铸造框架用 PF 或 RXU 树脂粘结剂粘结时记录的差异最大。所有组均在临床可接受的不匹配范围内。
Zotero 插件
