Zeltner Marco, Sailer Irena, Mühlemann Sven, Özcan Mutlu, Hämmerle Christoph H F, Benic Goran I
Postgraduate student, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Professor, Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Center of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Mar;117(3):354-362. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.028. Epub 2016 Sep 24.
Trials comparing the overall performance of digital with that of conventional workflows in restorative dentistry are needed.
The purpose of the third part of a series of investigations was to test whether the marginal and internal fit of monolithic crowns fabricated with fully digital workflows differed from that of crowns fabricated with the conventional workflow.
In each of 10 participants, 5 monolithic lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated for the same abutment tooth according to a randomly generated sequence. Digital workflows were applied for the fabrication of 4 crowns using the Lava, iTero, Cerec inLab, and Cerec infinident systems. The conventional workflow included a polyvinyl siloxane impression, manual waxing, and heat-press technique. The discrepancy between the crown and the tooth was registered using the replica technique with polyvinyl siloxane material. The dimensions of the marginal discrepancy (Discrepancy) and the internal discrepancy in 4 different regions of interest (Discrepancy, Discrepancy, Discrepancy, and Discrepancy) were assessed using light microscopy. Post hoc Student t test with Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences (α=.05).
Discrepancy was 83.6 ±51.1 μm for the Cerec infinident, 90.4 ±66.1 μm for the conventional, 94.3 ±58.3 μm for the Lava, 127.8 ±58.3 μm for the iTero, and 141.5 ±106.2 μm for the Cerec inLab workflow. The differences between the treatment modalities were not statistically significant (P>.05). Discrepancy was 82.2 ±42.4 μm for the Cerec infinident, 97.2 ±63.8 μm for the conventional, 103.4 ±52.0 μm for the Lava, 133.5 ±73.0 μm for the iTero, and 140.0 ±86.6 μm for the Cerec inLab workflow. Only the differences between the Cerec infinident and the Cerec inLab were statistically significant (P=.036). The conventionally fabricated crowns revealed significantly lower values in Discrepancy and Discrepancy than all the crowns fabricated with digital workflows (P<.05).
In terms of marginal crown fit, no significant differences were found between the conventional and digital workflows for the fabrication of monolithic lithium disilicate crowns. In the occlusal regions, the conventionally manufactured crowns revealed better fit than the digitally fabricated crowns. Chairside milling resulted in less favorable crown fit than centralized milling production.
需要进行试验来比较数字化流程与传统修复牙科流程的整体性能。
一系列调查的第三部分旨在测试采用全数字化流程制作的整体式冠的边缘适合性和内部适合性是否与采用传统流程制作的冠不同。
按照随机生成的顺序，为10名参与者中的每一位的同一基牙制作5个整体式二硅酸锂冠。使用Lava、iTero、Cerec inLab和Cerec infinident系统，采用数字化流程制作4个冠。传统流程包括使用聚乙烯基硅氧烷印模、手工上蜡和热压技术。使用聚乙烯基硅氧烷材料的复制技术记录冠与牙齿之间的差异。使用光学显微镜评估边缘差异（差异值）和4个不同感兴趣区域（差异值、差异值、差异值和差异值）的内部差异。采用经Bonferroni校正的事后学生t检验来检测差异（α = 0.05）。
Cerec infinident流程制作的冠的差异值为83.6±51.1μm，传统流程为90.4±66.1μm，Lava流程为94.3±58.3μm，iTero流程为127.8±58.3μm，Cerec inLab流程为141.5±106.2μm。各治疗方式之间的差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。Cerec infinident流程制作的冠的差异值为
