Aljehani Abdulrahman, Nabalawi Abdulmajeed, Hefni Ahmed, Alsefri Ziyad, Fakhry Omar, Al Zaibak Walaa, Raffa Ossama
King Abdulaziz University, Faculty of Dentistry, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Periodontics and Implants, Joele special medical center, Jeddah Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Dent J. 2024 Apr;36(4):584-590. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.01.004. Epub 2024 Jan 3.
Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technologies have been increasingly used to fabricate provisional restorations in recent years. This study assessed how build orientation influences the fracture resistance and marginal quality of 3D-printed crowns compared with milled provisional crowns.
The test group included 3D-printed crowns (Freeprint temp Shade A2, Detax, Ettlingen, Germany), which were further subdivided based on print orientation (0°, 45°, and 90°; n = 10 for each subgroup). The control group (n = 10) included milled crowns (Coratemp, White Peaks, Germany) with the same design as those of the test group. The margin quality of each crown was assessed at 60 × magnification using a digital stereomicroscope. A load-to-fracture test was performed by applying a force at a rate of 2 mm/min to assess fracture resistance. One sample from each subgroup was also subjected to scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis.
The milled group exhibited the highest fracture resistance and marginal quality. Within the printed subgroups, the 0° group showed the best mean marginal quality, whereas the 90° group showed the lowest mean marginal quality (p < 0.05). Within the test groups, the 90° group had the highest mean fracture resistance (p < 0.05). In the SEM analysis, the milled group exhibited the most homogenous boundaries, whereas among the 3D-printed subgroups, the samples printed at 0° had the best margin quality.
The manufacturing method significantly influences the marginal quality and fracture resistance. Milled crowns demonstrated superior marginal quality and fracture resistance compared to those of 3D printed crowns. Furthermore, the print orientation of 0° led to the best marginal quality, whereas printing at 90° led to the highest fracture resistance.
近年来,计算机辅助设计与计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)技术越来越多地用于制作临时修复体。本研究评估了与铣削临时冠相比,构建方向如何影响3D打印冠的抗折性和边缘质量。
测试组包括3D打印冠(Freeprint temp Shade A2,德国埃特林根的Detax公司),根据打印方向进一步细分(0°、45°和90°;每个亚组n = 10)。对照组(n = 10)包括与测试组设计相同的铣削冠(德国白峰公司的Coratemp)。使用数字立体显微镜在60倍放大倍数下评估每个冠的边缘质量。通过以2 mm/min的速率施加力进行抗折试验以评估抗折性。每个亚组的一个样本也进行扫描电子显微镜(SEM)分析。
铣削组表现出最高的抗折性和边缘质量。在打印亚组中,0°组显示出最佳的平均边缘质量,而90°组显示出最低的平均边缘质量(p < 0.05)。在测试组中,90°组具有最高的平均抗折性(p < 0.05)。在SEM分析中,铣削组表现出最均匀的边界,而在3D打印亚组中,以0°打印的样本具有最佳的边缘质量。
制造方法显著影响边缘质量和抗折性。与3D打印冠相比,铣削冠表现出更好的边缘质量和抗折性。此外,0°的打印方向导致最佳的边缘质量,而90°打印导致最高的抗折性。