Merchant Aman, Pandurangan Kiran Kumar, Shenoy Amrutha Dinesh, Nallaswamy Deepak, Singh Pooja Nilesh
Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2025 Jan 1;25(1):67-73. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_40_24. Epub 2025 Jan 3.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal fit of various three-dimensional (3D) printed and milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) dental prostheses.
The study was conducted in an in vitro study setting.
With a sample size of 45 for each fabrication method, this investigation compared the marginal fit of milled (Group 1) and 3D printed (Group 2) PMMA dental prostheses across different designs. The selection of samples was based on G*Power calculations. Tooth preparations were conducted on a typodont jaw set, followed by digital scanning and design processes. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing milling and 3D printing were employed for the fabrication of prostheses. The assessment of marginal accuracy at specific points was performed using a stereomicroscope.
Independent t-tests were used to evaluate marginal discrepancies between milled and printed prosthetic designs at specific tooth surfaces. Univariate analysis of variance assessed marginal discrepancies across prosthesis designs and fabrication methods, with the Tukey post hoc test for significantly different results (α =0.05).
Milled single crowns exhibited superior accuracy (61.50 ± 4.852 μ) compared to printed ones (65.74 ± 7.311 μ) (t = -1.868, P = 0.037). Similar trends were observed for other designs, emphasizing the impact of both prosthesis design and fabrication method on marginal fit. Notable discrepancies were found on the distal surfaces of the anterior bridge crossing midline design (t = -3.262, P = 0.003).
Milled prostheses exhibited superior marginal fit as compared to 3D printed prostheses, with differences within clinically acceptable limits.
本体外研究旨在比较各种三维（3D）打印和铣削的聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（PMMA）牙科修复体的边缘适合性。
本研究在体外研究环境中进行。
每种制作方法的样本量为45，本研究比较了铣削（第1组）和3D打印（第2组）的PMMA牙科修复体在不同设计下的边缘适合性。样本的选择基于G*Power计算。在一个牙模型颌架上进行牙齿预备，随后进行数字扫描和设计过程。采用计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造铣削及3D打印技术制作修复体。使用体视显微镜在特定点评估边缘精度。
采用独立t检验评估铣削和打印的修复体设计在特定牙面的边缘差异。单因素方差分析评估修复体设计和制作方法之间的边缘差异，采用Tukey事后检验分析显著不同的结果（α =0.05）。
铣削的单冠修复体显示出比打印的单冠修复体更高的精度（61.50±4.852μm）（打印的为65.74±7.311μm）（t = -1.868，P = 0.037）。其他设计也观察到类似趋势，强调了修复体设计和制作方法对边缘适合性的影响。在前桥跨越中线设计的远中面发现了显著差异（t = -3.262，P = 0.003）。
与3D打印的修复体相比，铣削的修复体显示出更好的边缘适合性，差异在临床可接受范围内。
