Division of General Dentistry, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA.
Advanced Education Program in Prosthodontics, and Center for Dental Research, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA.
J Prosthodont. 2019 Jun;28(5):547-555. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12997. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
To evaluate the overall accuracy and fit of conventional versus computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks based on standard tessellation language (STL) data analysis, and to evaluate the accuracy and fit of each component of the RPD framework.
A maxillary metal framework was designed for a Kennedy class III Modification I arch. The master model was scanned and used to compare the fit and accuracy of RPD frameworks. Forty impressions (conventional and digital) of the master cast were made and divided into 4 groups based on fabrication method: group I, lost-wax technique (conventional technique), group II, CAD-printing, group III, CAD-printing from stone cast, and group IV, lost-wax technique from resin-printed model. RPD frameworks were fabricated in cobalt-chromium alloy. All frameworks were scanned, and the gap distance between the framework and scanned master model was measured at 8 locations. Color mapping was conducted using comprehensive metrology software. Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskall-Wallis test, followed by the Bonferroni method for pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05).
Color mapping revealed distinct discrepancies in major connectors among the groups. When compared to 3D-printed frameworks, conventional cast frameworks fabricated using dental stone or printed resin models revealed significantly better fit (p < 0.05) particularly in the major connectors and guide plates. The biggest gap (0.33 mm ± 0.20 mm) was observed with the anterior strap of the major connector with the printed frameworks (groups II and III). The method of fabrication did not affect the adaptation of the rests or reciprocation plates.
Although both conventional and 3D-printing methods of framework fabrication revealed clinically acceptable adaptation, the conventional cast RPD groups revealed better overall fit and accuracy.
基于标准网格语言(STL)数据分析,评估传统与计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)可摘局部义齿(RPD)修复体的整体准确性和适配性,并评估 RPD 修复体各部件的准确性和适配性。
设计了一个上颌金属 RPD 修复体,基牙为 Kennedy 分类 III 类 Modification I 型。通过扫描模型来比较 RPD 修复体的适配性和准确性。对工作模型进行 40 次印模(传统和数字化),根据制作方法将其分为 4 组:组 I,失蜡技术(传统技术);组 II,CAD 打印;组 III,CAD 打印来自石模型;组 IV,来自树脂打印模型的失蜡技术。钴铬合金制作 RPD 修复体。所有修复体均进行扫描,并在 8 个位置测量修复体与扫描模型之间的间隙距离。使用综合计量软件进行颜色映射。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验对数据进行统计学分析,然后使用 Bonferroni 方法进行两两比较(α=0.05)。
颜色映射显示各组之间主要连接体存在明显差异。与 3D 打印修复体相比,使用牙科石或打印树脂模型制作的传统铸造修复体具有更好的适配性(p<0.05),特别是在主要连接体和导板处。在前部连接体的前带处观察到最大的间隙(0.33±0.20mm),这发生在 3D 打印的修复体组(组 II 和 III)中。制作方法不影响支托或回切板的适配性。
尽管传统和 3D 打印框架制作方法都显示出可接受的临床适应性,但传统铸造 RPD 组显示出更好的整体适配性和准确性。