Kocaağaoğlu Hasan, Albayrak Haydar, Cinel Sahin Sezgi, Gürbulak Ayşegül Güleryüz
Private Practice, Calhan Dental Clinic, Denizli, Turkey.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
J Adv Prosthodont. 2019 Oct;11(5):262-270. doi: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.262. Epub 2019 Oct 30.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal misfits of three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and digital impressions techniques.
Thirty brass canine and second premolar abutment preparations were fabricated by using a computer numerical control machine and were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=10) as follows: conventional impression group (Group Ci), Cerec Omnicam (Group Cdi), and 3shape TRIOS-3 (Group Tdi) digital impression groups. The laser-sintered metal frameworks were designed and fabricated with conventional and digital impressions. The marginal adaptation was assessed with a stereomicroscope at ×30 magnification. The data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and the independent simple t tests.
A statistically significant difference was found between the frameworks fabricated by conventional methods and those fabricated by digital impression methods. Multiple comparison results revealed that the frameworks in Group Ci (average, 98.8 ± 16.43 µm; canine, 93.59 ± 16.82 µm; premolar, 104.10 ± 15.02 µm) had larger marginal misfit values than those in Group Cdi (average, 63.78 ± 14.05 µm; canine, 62.73 ± 13.71 µm; premolar, 64.84 ± 15.06 µm) and Group Tdi (average, 65.14 ± 18.05 µm; canine, 70.64 ± 19.02 µm; premolar, 59.64 ± 16.10 µm) (=.000 for average; =.001 for canine; <.001 for premolar). No statistical difference was found between the marginal misfits of canine and premolar abutment teeth within the same groups (>.05).
The three-unit frameworks fabricated with digital impression techniques showed better marginal fit compared to conventional impression techniques. All marginal misfit values were clinically acceptable.
本研究旨在评估采用传统印模技术和数字印模技术制作的三单位框架的边缘适合性。
使用计算机数控机床制作30个黄铜犬齿和第二前磨牙基牙预备体，并随机分为3组（n = 10），如下：传统印模组（Ci组）、Cerec Omnicam数字印模组（Cdi组）和3shape TRIOS-3数字印模组（Tdi组）。采用传统印模和数字印模设计并制作激光烧结金属框架。使用体视显微镜在30倍放大倍数下评估边缘适合性。数据采用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）和独立单样本t检验进行分析。
发现传统方法制作的框架与数字印模方法制作的框架之间存在统计学显著差异。多重比较结果显示，Ci组（平均值，98.8±16.43µm；犬齿，93.59±16.82µm；前磨牙，104.10±15.02µm）的框架边缘适合性差值大于Cdi组（平均值，63.78±14.05µm；犬齿，62.73±13.71µm；前磨牙，64.84±15.06µm）和Tdi组（平均值，65.14±18.05µm；犬齿，70.64±19.02µm；前磨牙，59.64±16.10µm）（平均值P = 0.000；犬齿P = 0.001；前磨牙P < 0.001）。同一组内犬齿和前磨牙基牙的边缘适合性差值无统计学差异（P > 0.05）。
与传统印模技术相比，采用数字印模技术制作的三单位框架显示出更好的边缘适合性。所有边缘适合性差值在临床上均可接受。
