Conceição Pedro Rodrigues, Franco Margarida, Alves Nuno, Portugal Jaime, Neves Cristina Bettencourt
Dental Biomaterials Resarch Group (BIOMAT), Biomedical and Oral Science Research Unit (UICOB), Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Research Center on Health and Social Sciences (CARE), Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre (IPP), Portalegre, Portugal.
Clin Oral Investig. 2025 Apr 18;29(5):253. doi: 10.1007/s00784-025-06336-y.
The purpose of this cross-over clinical study was to compare the number of framework repetitions, percentage of framework components adjusted, clinical acceptability, and fit accuracy of removable partial denture frameworks produced by the direct metal laser sintering technique (DMLS) and conventional technique.
For each dental arch (n = 26), two cobalt-chromium frameworks were produced through two protocols: direct metal laser sintering (experimental group) and conventional lost-wax casting technique (control group). The number of framework repetitions, the percentage of components that had to be adjusted, and the clinical acceptability were registered. The fit accuracy of functional components was assessed by a qualitative method using endodontic files to identify maladjustments and compared to a quantitative method based on silicone specimens digitized by micro-computed tomography. The normality was checked (Shapiro-Wilk test), and data were analyzed with McNemar, Wilcoxon and paired-t tests (α = 0.05).
No statistically significant differences were found between conventional and digital frameworks for most of the variables tested (p > 0.05) except the fewer laboratory repetitions (p = 0.046), higher percentage of components adjusted (p = 0.011), and better reciprocal arms fit (p = 0.044) in the frameworks produced by DMLS protocol. No statistically significant (p = 0.174) difference was found between the fit accuracy qualitative and quantitative assessment methods.
The DMLS and conventional protocols were similar. Despite the DMLS protocol exhibiting a higher percentage of components adjusted, it presented better reciprocal arms fit accuracy with no framework repetition.
Metal frameworks can be produced using DMLS eliminating casting problems.
本交叉临床研究旨在比较直接金属激光烧结技术(DMLS)和传统技术制作的可摘局部义齿支架的框架重复次数、框架组件调整百分比、临床可接受性和贴合精度。
对于每个牙弓(n = 26),通过两种方案制作两个钴铬合金支架:直接金属激光烧结(实验组)和传统失蜡铸造技术(对照组)。记录框架重复次数、必须调整的组件百分比和临床可接受性。使用根管锉通过定性方法评估功能组件的贴合精度,以识别调整不当之处,并与基于微计算机断层扫描数字化的硅树脂标本的定量方法进行比较。检查数据的正态性(Shapiro-Wilk检验),并使用McNemar检验、Wilcoxon检验和配对t检验(α = 0.05)分析数据。
在大多数测试变量方面,传统框架和数字框架之间未发现统计学上的显著差异(p > 0.05),但DMLS方案制作的框架实验室重复次数较少(p = 0.046)、组件调整百分比更高(p = 0.011)以及相互臂贴合更好(p = 0.044)。在贴合精度的定性和定量评估方法之间未发现统计学上的显著差异(p = 0.174)。
DMLS方案和传统方案相似。尽管DMLS方案显示出更高的组件调整百分比,但它在没有框架重复的情况下具有更好的相互臂贴合精度。
可以使用DMLS制作金属支架,消除铸造问题。