Sadighpour Leyla, Geramipanah Farideh, Falahchai Mehran, Ebrahimi Fatemeh, Tadbiri Hasan
Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Scientifica (Cairo). 2025 May 25;2025:1608702. doi: 10.1155/sci5/1608702. eCollection 2025.
There is a gap of information regarding the effect of type of milling machine (based on axis number) on mechanical properties of three-unit interim restorations. Thus, this study aimed to compare the fracture resistance (FR) of three-unit interim restorations fabricated by the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology with two different milling machines and the direct technique by using different materials. Seventy-two three-unit interim restorations were fabricated on mandibular second molar and second premolar metal dies in six groups ( = 12) according to the fabrication technique and the material used: milling groups with 4-axis (Arum) and 5-axis (Amann Girrbach) milling machines, and direct fabrication groups by using Visalys, Unifast III, Tempron, and Acropars materials. The restorations underwent thermocycling and cyclic loading, and their FR was measured. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc HSD test ( = 0.05). Of the directly fabricated restorations, Visalys showed significantly higher FR than other materials ( < 0.05) while Acropars showed the lowest FR. The difference in FR between Unifast III and Tempron was not significant (=0.298). The FR of Amann Girrbach and Arum groups was not significantly different (=0.563) but their FR was significantly higher than the FR of other groups ( < 0.001). Interim restorations fabricated by CAD/CAM milling had higher FR than traditionally fabricated restorations by the direct technique. Number of axes of the milling machine had no significant effect on FR. Visalys (bis-acrylic material) showed superior results.
关于铣床类型（基于轴数）对三单位临时修复体力学性能的影响，目前存在信息空白。因此，本研究旨在比较使用两种不同铣床通过计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造（CAD-CAM）技术制作的三单位临时修复体与使用不同材料的直接技术制作的修复体的抗折强度（FR）。根据制作技术和所用材料，在72个下颌第二磨牙和第二前磨牙金属模型上制作了六组（每组 = 12个）三单位临时修复体：使用4轴（Arum）和5轴（Amann Girrbach）铣床的铣削组，以及使用Visalys、Unifast III、Tempron和Acropars材料的直接制作组。对修复体进行热循环和循环加载，并测量其抗折强度。数据采用单因素方差分析和Tukey事后HSD检验（α = 0.05）进行分析。在直接制作的修复体中，Visalys的抗折强度显著高于其他材料（P < 0.05），而Acropars的抗折强度最低。Unifast III和Tempron之间的抗折强度差异不显著（P = 0.298）。Amann Girrbach组和Arum组的抗折强度差异不显著（P = 0.563），但它们的抗折强度显著高于其他组（P < 0.001）。通过CAD/CAM铣削制作的临时修复体的抗折强度高于传统直接技术制作的修复体。铣床的轴数对抗折强度没有显著影响。Visalys（双丙烯酸材料）显示出优异的结果。
