Private practice, Ankara, Turkey.
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Nov;120(5):715-720. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.02.012. Epub 2018 Jul 14.
Subtractive and additive computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems have been used in the fabrication of cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) long-span restorations. However, the accuracy of fit of multiunit frameworks is unclear.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal and internal fit of implant-supported, cement-retained 3-unit, 4-unit, and 5-unit Co-Cr metal frameworks fabricated by the lost wax (LW), CAD-CAM milling, and selective laser melting (SLM) techniques.
A total of 90 Co-Cr metal frameworks were fabricated for 3-unit, 4-unit, or 5-unit implant-supported cement-retained restorations on stock abutments with 3 different manufacturing technique subgroups (LW, CAD-CAM milling, and SLM). The silicone replica technique was used to evaluate the marginal and internal discrepancy values. By using a light microscope at ×45 magnification and a digital measurement program, the thickness of the silicone layer was measured at 16 reference points on each abutment for a total of 3360 measurements. The effect of manufacturing techniques and number of units (groups) on discrepancy values was evaluated using a full factorial ANOVA model. Group and manufacturing technique effects were analyzed separately by 1-way ANOVA in case of significant interactions. Pairwise comparisons were evaluated using the Tukey post hoc test (α=.05).
The mean marginal discrepancy of 3-unit frameworks showed no statistically significant differences in the LW (35 μm) and SLM (25 μm) techniques; however, the frameworks manufactured by CAD-CAM milling (68 μm) had the highest marginal discrepancy values (P<.001). The mean marginal discrepancy values were 40 μm (LW), 33 μm (CAD-CAM milling), and 25 μm (SLM) for 4-unit frameworks, and no significant differences were found among the manufacturing techniques. For 5-unit frameworks, CAD-CAM milling techniques had the widest mean marginal discrepancy values (85 μm), and copings manufactured by the LW technique had the lowest mean marginal discrepancy values (36 μm). For all manufacturing techniques, axial discrepancy values were not affected with respect to the unit number (P=.526). The highest internal discrepancy values were measured at the occlusal area in all groups.
CAD-CAM milling had the poorest marginal fit values for 5-unit frameworks, whereas the LW technique demonstrated the best results. Unit number had no significant influence on the marginal and internal fit of the LW manufactured frameworks.
减法和加法计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD-CAM)系统已用于钴铬(Co-Cr)长跨度修复体的制造。然而,多单位框架的适配精度尚不清楚。
本体外研究的目的是比较失蜡(LW)、CAD-CAM 铣削和选择性激光熔化(SLM)技术制造的种植体支持、粘结固位的 3 单位、4 单位和 5 单位 Co-Cr 金属框架的边缘和内部适配。
在具有 3 种不同制造技术亚组(LW、CAD-CAM 铣削和 SLM)的标准基台上,共制作了 90 个用于种植体支持、粘结固位修复体的 3 单位、4 单位或 5 单位 Co-Cr 金属框架。使用硅橡胶复制技术评估边缘和内部差异值。使用放大倍数为×45 的光学显微镜和数字测量程序,在每个基台的 16 个参考点测量硅橡胶层的厚度,共测量 3360 次。使用完全析因方差模型评估制造技术和单位数(组)对差异值的影响。如果存在显著的相互作用,则通过单向方差分析分别分析组和制造技术的影响。使用 Tukey 事后检验(α=.05)进行成对比较。
3 单位框架的平均边缘差异在 LW(35 μm)和 SLM(25 μm)技术中没有统计学上的显著差异;然而,CAD-CAM 铣削制造的框架(68 μm)具有最高的边缘差异值(P<.001)。4 单位框架的平均边缘差异值为 40 μm(LW)、33 μm(CAD-CAM 铣削)和 25 μm(SLM),制造技术之间没有显著差异。对于 5 单位框架,CAD-CAM 铣削技术的平均边缘差异值最宽(85 μm),而 LW 技术制造的牙冠具有最低的平均边缘差异值(36 μm)。对于所有制造技术,轴向差异值与单位数无关(P=.526)。所有组中,在咬合区测量的内部差异值最大。
CAD-CAM 铣削技术对 5 单位框架的边缘适配值最差,而 LW 技术的结果最好。单位数对 LW 制造框架的边缘和内部适配没有显著影响。