The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Marginal and internal fit of 3D printed provisional crowns according to build directions

  • Ryu, Ji-Eun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kim, Yu-Lee (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kong, Hyun-Jun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Chang, Hoon-Sang (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Jung, Ji-Hye (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • Received : 2020.02.25
  • Accepted : 2020.06.01
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study aimed to fabricate provisional crowns at varying build directions using the digital light processing (DLP)-based 3D printing and evaluate the marginal and internal fit of the provisional crowns using the silicone replica technique (SRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The prepared resin tooth was scanned and a single crown was designed using computer-aided design (CAD) software. Provisional crowns were printed using a DLP-based 3D printer at 6 directions (120°, 135°, 150°, 180°, 210°, 225°) with 10 crowns in each direction. In total, sixty crowns were printed. To measure the marginal and internal fit, a silicone replica was fabricated and the thickness of the silicone impression material was measured using a digital microscope. Sixteen reference points were set and divided into the following 4 groups: marginal gap (MG), cervical gap (CG), axial gap (AG), and occlusal gap (OG). The measurements were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Dunnett T3. RESULTS. MG, CG, and OG were significantly different by build angle groups (P<.05). The MG and CG were significantly larger in the 120° group than in other groups. OG was the smallest in the 150° and 180° and the largest in the 120° and 135° groups. CONCLUSION. The marginal and internal fit of the 3D-printed provisional crowns can vary depending on the build angle and the best fit was achieved with build angles of 150° and 180°.

Keywords

References

  1. Berman B. 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Bus Horiz 2012;55:155-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003
  2. Azari A, Nikzad S. The evolution of rapid prototyping in dentistry: a review. Rapid Prototyp J 2009;15:216-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540910961946
  3. Andersen UV, Pedersen DB, Hansen HN, Nielsen JS. Inprocess 3D geometry reconstruction of objects produced by direct light projection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2013;68:565-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-4778-3
  4. Mitteramskogler G, Gmeiner R, Felzmann R, Gruber S, Hofstetter C, Stampfl J, Ebert J, Wachter W, Lanubersheimer J. Light curing strategies for lithography-based additive manufacturing of customized ceramics. Addit Manuf 2014;1:110-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2014.08.003
  5. Duke ES. Provisional restorative materials: a technology update. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999;20:497-500.
  6. Hamza TA, Rosenstiel SF, El-Hosary MM, Ibraheem RM. Fracture resistance of fiber-reinforced PMMA interim fixed partial dentures. J Prosthodont 2006;15:223-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849x.2006.00110.x
  7. Digholkar S, Madhav VN, Palaskar J. Evaluation of the flexural strength and microhardness of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated by different methods. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16:328-34. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.191288
  8. Monday JJ, Blais D. Marginal adaptation of provisional acrylic resin crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:194-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90285-9
  9. Cheng W, Fuh J, Nee A, Wong Y, Loh H, Miyazawa T. Multiobjective optimization of part-building orientation in stereolithography. Rapid Prototyp J 1995;1:12-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552549510104429
  10. Park JY, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Comparison of prosthetic models produced by traditional and additive manufacturing methods. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7:294-302. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.294
  11. Alharbi N, Alharbi S, Cuijpers VMJI, Osman RB, Wismeijer D. Three-dimensional evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed interim restorations fabricated on different finish line designs. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:218-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.09.002
  12. Alharbi N, Osman RB, Wismeijer D. Factors influencing the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed full-coverage dental restorations using stereolithography technology. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:503-10. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4835
  13. Osman RB, Alharbi N, Wismeijer D. Build angle: Does it influence the accuracy of 3D-printed dental restorations using digital light-processing technology? Int J Prosthodont 2017;30:182-8. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5117
  14. Laurent M, Scheer P, Dejou J, Laborde G. Clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of cast crowns-validation of the silicone replica method. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35:116-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2003.01203.x
  15. Son K, Lee S, Kang SH, Park J, Lee K, Jeon M, Yun BJ. A comparison study of marginal and internal fit assessment methods for fixed dental prostheses. J Clin Med 2019;8:785. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8060785
  16. Wu JC, Wilson PR. Optimal cement space for resin luting cements. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:209-15.
  17. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:405-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90170-4
  18. Abdullah AO, Tsitrou EA, Pollington S. Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24:258-63. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150451
  19. Yao J, Li J, Wang Y, Huang H. Comparison of the flexural strength and marginal accuracy of traditional and CAD/CAM interim materials before and after thermal cycling. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:649-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.01.012
  20. Belser UC, MacEntee MI, Richter WA. Fit of three porcelainfused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:24-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90058-7
  21. Beuer F, Neumeier P, Naumann M. Marginal fit of 14-unit zirconia fixed dental prosthesis retainers. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:142-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01908.x
  22. Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T, Wakabayashi K. Marginal and internal fit of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:244-8.
  23. Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG, Belser UC, Meyer JM. Effect of cement film thickness on the fracture resistance of a machinable glass-ceramic. Dent Mater 1994;10:172-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90028-0
  24. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41:853-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12205
  25. Kokubo Y, Nagayama Y, Tsumita M, Ohkubo C, Fukushima S, Vult von Steyern P. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of In-Ceram crowns fabricated using the GN-I system. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:753-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01506.x
  26. Park GS, Kim SK, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Seo DG. Effects of printing parameters on the fit of implant-supported 3D printing resin prosthetics. Materials (Basel) 2019;12:2533. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12162533
  27. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, Bompolaki D, Athirasala A, Pfeifer CS, Ferracane JL, Bertassoni LE. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 2018;34:192-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003
  28. Unkovskiy A, Bui PH, Schille C, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Huettig F, Spintzyk S. Objects build orientation, positioning, and curing influence dimensional accuracy and flexural properties of stereolithographically printed resin. Dent Mater 2018;34:324-33.
  29. Frank D, Fadel G. Expert system-based selection of the preferred direction of build for rapid prototyping processes. J Intell Manuf 1995;6:339-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00124677
  30. Pham D, Dimov S, Gault R. Part orientation in stereolithography. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1999;15:674-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001700050118
  31. Strano G, Hao L, Everson R, Evans K. A new approach to the design and optimisation of support structures in additive manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2013;66:1247-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4403-x
  32. Jiang J, Xu X, Stringer J. Support structures for additive manufacturing: A review. J Manuf Mater Process 2018;2:64. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp2040064
  33. Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG. Slicing procedures in layered manufacturing: a review. Rapid Prototyp J 2003;9:274-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540310502185
  34. Pandey PM, Thrimurthulu K, Reddy NV. Optimal part deposition orientation in FDM by using a multicriteria genetic algorithm. Int J Prod Res 2004;42:4069-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540410001708470
  35. Paul R, Anand S. Optimization of layered manufacturing process for reducing form errors with minimal support structures. J Manuf Syst 2015;36:231-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.014

Cited by

  1. Evaluating the accuracy (trueness and precision) of interim crowns manufactured using digital light processing according to post-curing time: An in vitro study vol.13, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.2.89