구강회복응용과학지 (Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science)

  • 제40권2호
  • /
  • Pages.72-81
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2384-4353(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-4272(eISSN)
대한턱관절교합학회 (Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

가철성 다이 시스템으로 제작된 작업 모형과 솔리드 작업 모형 상에서 제작된 지르코니아 3본 고정성 치과 보철물의 변연 및 내면 적합도 비교

Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from solid working casts and working casts from a removable die system

  • Wan-Sun Lee (Department of Dental Technology, Bucheon University)
  • 투고 : 2024.03.18
  • 심사 : 2024.04.23
  • 발행 : 2024.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 본 연구의 목적은 가철성 다이 시스템으로 제작된 작업 모형과 솔리드 작업 모형을 이용해 치과용 캐드캠 시스템(CAD/CAM)으로 제작된 지르코니아 3본 고정성 치과 보철물의 변연 및 내부 적합성을 평가하고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 하악 우측 제1소구치와 하악 우측 제1대구치에 지르코니아 크라운을 위한 치아 삭제 프로토콜을 수행하고, 하악 우측 제2소구치가 없는 레퍼런스 모델을 만들었다. 레퍼런스 모델은 폴리비닐 실록산 인상체를 사용하여 복제되었고, 일반적인 치과 기공 절차에 따라 20개의 작업 모형이 제작되었다. 비교 분석을 위해, 10개의 지르코니아 3본 고정성 치과 보철물은 가철성 다이 시스템에서, 나머지 10개는 솔리드 작업 모형에서 제작되었다. 모든 작업 모형은 치과용 데스크탑 스캐너를 사용하여 디지털화되었고, 캐드 소프트웨어에서 보철물을 설계하였다. 최종 3본 고정성 치과 보철물은 밀링 과정을 통해 제작되었다. 변연 및 내부 적합도 평가는 레퍼런스 모델에 제작된 보철물을 위치시키고, 디지털 평가 방법으로 적합도가 측정되었다. 두 그룹 간의 통계 비교를 위해 Mann-Whitney U 검정이 적용되었다(α = 0.05). 결과: 가철성 다이 그룹은 솔리드 작업 모형 그룹에 비해 소구치와 대구치에서 유의하게 높은 적합도 차이를 보였으며(P < 0.05), 특히 변연 및 교합 간격에서 유의하게 높은 편차를 보였다. 색상 편차 맵에서도 가철성 다이 그룹이 변연 및 교합 영역에서 더욱 높은 편차를 보였다. 결론: 3본 고정성 치과 보철물의 적합도 차이는 가철성 다이 시스템의 작업 모형 상에서 제작된 치과 보철물에서 초래되었으며, 이를 통해 가철성 다이 제작 방법이 치과 고정성 보철물의 정확성에 영향이 있었음을 검증하였다.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated via computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) from solid working casts and removable die system. Materials and Methods: The tooth preparation protocol for a zirconia crown was executed on the mandibular right first premolar and mandibular right first molar, with the creation of a reference cast featuring an absent mandibular right second premolar. The reference cast was duplicated using polyvinyl siloxane impression, from which 20 working casts were fabricated following typical dental laboratory procedures. For comparative analysis, 10 FPDs were produced from a removable die system (RD group) and the remaining 10 FPDs from the solid working casts (S group). The casts were digitized using a dental desktop scanner to establish virtual casts and design the FPDs using CAD. The definitive 3-unit monolithic zirconia FPDs were fabricated via a CAM milling process. The seated FPDs on the reference cast underwent digital evaluation for marginal and internal fit. The Mann-Whitney U test was applied for statistical comparison between the two groups (α = 0.05). Results: The RD group showed significantly higher discrepancies in fit for both premolars and molars compared to the S group (P < 0.05), particularly in terms of marginal and occlusal gaps. Color mapping also highlighted more significant deviations in the RD group, especially in the marginal and occlusal regions. Conclusion: The study found that the discrepancies in marginal and occlusal fits of 3-unit monolithic zirconia FPDs were primarily associated with those fabricated using the removable die system. This indicates the significant impact of the fabrication method on the accuracy of FPDs.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by Bucheon University Research Grant.

참고문헌

  1. Pereira ALC, de Medeiros AKB, de Sousa Santos K, de Almeida EO, Barbosa GAS, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. Accuracy of CAD-CAM systems for removable partial denture framework fabrication: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:241-8.
  2. Lee YS, Kim SY, Oh KC, Moon HS. A comparative study of the accuracy of dental CAD programs in designing a fixed partial denture. J Prosthodont 2022;31:215-20.
  3. Kim SH, Choi YS, Kang KH, Att W. Effects of thermal and mechanical cycling on the mechanical strength and surface properties of dental CAD-CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:79-88.
  4. Parize H, Tardelli JDC, Bohner L, Sesma N, Muglia VA, Dos Reis AC. Digital versus conventional workflow for the fabrication of physical casts for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:25-32.
  5. Takaichi A, Fueki K, Murakami N, Ueno T, Inamochi Y, Wada J, Wakabayashi N. A systematic review of digital removable partial dentures. Part II: CAD/ CAM framework, artificial teeth, and denture base. J Prosthodont Res 2022;66:53-67.
  6. Revilla-Leon M, Kois DE, Kois JC. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2 - Patient factors. J Esthet Restor Dent 2023; 35:241-9.
  7. Baghani MT, Shayegh SS, Johnston WM, Shidfar S, Hakimaneh SMR. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy and precision of intraoral and extraoral complete- arch scans. J Prosthet Dent 2021;126:665-70.
  8. Huang MY, Son K, Lee KB. Effect of distance between the abutment and the adjacent teeth on intraoral scanning: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:911-7.
  9. Son K, Lee KB. Effect of finish line locations of tooth preparation on the accuracy of intraoral scanners. Int J Comput Dent 2021;24:29-40.
  10. Chen Y, Zhai Z, Li H, Yamada S, Matsuoka T, Ono S, Nakano T. Influence of liquid on the tooth surface on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2022;31:59-64.
  11. Rekow ED. Digital dentistry: The new state of the art - Is it disruptive or destructive? Dent Mater 2020;36:9-24.
  12. AlRumaih HS. Clinical applications of intraoral scanning in removable prosthodontics: a literature review. J Prosthodont 2021;30:747-62.
  13. Yilmaz B, Donmez MB, Kahveci C, Cuellar AR, de Paula MS, Schimmel M, Abou-Ayash S, Cakmak G. Effect of printing layer thickness on the trueness and fit of additively manufactured removable dies. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1318.e1-9.
  14. Azpiazu-Flores FX, Johnston WM, Mata-Mata SJ, Yilmaz B. Positional trueness of three removable die designs with different root geometries manufactured using stereolithographic 3D printing. J Prosthet Dent 2023:S0022-3913(23)00606-6.
  15. Yu BY, Son K, Lee KB. Effect of abutment superimposition process of dental model scanner on final virtual model. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2019;57:203-10.
  16. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:389-404.
  17. Ceylan G, Emir F. Evaluating the accuracy of CAD/CAM optimized stones compared to conventional type IV stones. PLoS One 2023;18:e0282509.
  18. Sivakumar I, Mohan J, Arunachalam KS, Zankari V. A comparison of the accuracy of three removable die systems and two die materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2013;21:115-9.
  19. Serrano JG, Lepe X, Townsend JD, Johnson GH, Thielke S. An accuracy evaluation of four removable die systems. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:575-86.
  20. Covo LM, Ziebert GJ, Balthazar Y, Christensen LV. Accuracy and comparative stability of three removable die systems. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:314-8.
  21. Hoffman M, Cho SH, Bansal NK. Interproximal distance analysis of stereolithographic casts made by CAD-CAM technology: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:624-30.
  22. Loetzerich JM, Raith S, Reich S. Verification of a digital approach for three-dimensional evaluation of marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent 2023:S0022-3913(23)00618-2.
  23. Holst S, Karl M, Wichmann M, Matta RE. A new triple-scan protocol for 3D fit assessment of dental restorations. Quintessence Int 2011;42:651-7.
  24. Dahl BE, Ronold HJ, Dahl JE. Internal fit of single crowns produced by CAD-CAM and lost-wax metal casting technique assessed by the triple-scan protocol. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:400-4.
  25. Park JM, Hammerle CHF, Benic GI. Digital technique for in vivo assessment of internal and marginal fit of fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:452-4.