Suppr超能文献

不同类型 3D 打印印模托盘时聚醚和乙烯基聚硅氧烷印模的准确性 - 一项体外研究。

Accuracy of polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impressions when using different types of 3D-printed impression trays - an in vitro study.

机构信息

Department of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

出版信息

Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Sep 30;28(10):560. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05962-2.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To investigate dimensional accuracy of polyether (PE) and vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impressions taken with manually fabricated and 3D-printed trays.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To evaluate impression accuracy, highly precise digital data of a metallic lower jaw model with prepared teeth (regions 34 and 36), an implant (region 47) and three precision balls placed occlusally along the dental arch served as reference. PE (Impregum, 3M Oral Care) and VPS (Aquasil, Dentsply Sirona) impressions (n = 10/group) were taken with trays fabricated using different materials and manufacturing techniques (FDM: filament deposition modeling, material: Arfona Tray, Arfona; printer: Pro2, Raise3D; DLP: digital light processing, material: V-Print Tray, VOCO, printer: Max, Asiga; MPR: manual processing with light-curing plates, material: LC Tray, Müller-Omicron) including an open implant impression. Scans of resulting stone models were compared with the reference situation. Global distance and angular deviations as well as local trueness and precision for abutment teeth and scan abutment were computed. Possible statistical effects were analyzed using ANOVA.

RESULTS

Clinically acceptable global accuracy was found (all mean absolute distance changes < 100 μm) and local accuracy for single abutments was excellent. All factors (abutment type, impression material, tray material) affected global accuracy (p < 0.05). In particular with PE impressions, MPR trays led to the best accuracies, both in horizontal and vertical direction.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, impression accuracy was high in use of both polyether and vinylpolysiloxane combined with different 3D-printed and customized trays making them recommendable for at least impressions for smaller fixed dental prostheses. Manually fabricated trays were overall still the best choice if utmost precision is required.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Based on the results of this study, use of innovative CAD-CAM fabrication of individual impression trays fulfills the perquisites to be a viable option for impression making. In the sense of translational research, performance should be proved in a clinical setting.

摘要

目的

研究手动制作和 3D 打印托盘制取的聚醚(PE)和乙烯基聚硅氧烷(VPS)印模的尺寸精度。

材料与方法

为了评估印模精度,使用具有预备牙(34 区和 36 区)、种植体(47 区)和三个精密球体的高精度数字化金属下颌模型的牙列咬合数据作为参考。使用不同材料和制造技术(FDM:丝状沉积建模,材料:Arfona Tray,Arfona;打印机:Pro2,Raise3D;DLP:数字光处理,材料:V-Print Tray,VOCO,打印机:Max,Asiga;MPR:使用光固化板的手动处理,材料:LC Tray,Müller-Omicron)制作托盘制取 PE(Impregum,3M Oral Care)和 VPS(Aquasil,Dentsply Sirona)印模(每组 n=10),包括开放式种植体印模。将所得石模型的扫描结果与参考情况进行比较。计算基牙和扫描基牙的整体距离和角度偏差以及局部准确性和精度。使用 ANOVA 分析可能的统计影响。

结果

发现临床可接受的整体精度(所有平均绝对距离变化均<100 μm)和单个基牙的局部精度均非常出色。所有因素(基牙类型、印模材料、托盘材料)均影响整体精度(p<0.05)。特别是在使用 PE 印模时,MPR 托盘在水平和垂直方向上均能达到最佳精度。

结论

在本体外研究的限制内,使用聚醚和乙烯基聚硅氧烷结合不同 3D 打印和定制托盘制取印模时,精度均较高,因此推荐用于至少小型固定义齿的印模制取。如果需要最高精度,手动制作的托盘总体上仍是最佳选择。

临床相关性

基于本研究结果,使用创新的 CAD-CAM 个体化托盘制取可满足成为一种可行的印模制取方法的先决条件。在转化研究的意义上,应在临床环境中证明其性能。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e1ad/11442511/37d5bce49d06/784_2024_5962_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验