PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(04): 563-568
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700364
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Marginal Discrepancy of Single Implant-Supported Metal Copings Fabricated by Various CAD/CAM and Conventional Techniques Using Different Materials

Safoura Ghodsi
1   Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Marzieh Alikhasi
1   Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Nika Soltani
2   Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
26. November 2019 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective Framework patterns can be formed using various materials such as wax, acrylic resin, or composite. Frameworks can be fabricated using either conventional or computerized techniques, using additive or subtractive method. This study aimed to compare the marginal adaptation of metal copings fabricated by two computerized technologies (milling and rapid prototyping) and additive conventional methods using different materials.

Materials and Methods Seventy-two fixture analogs were mounted vertically in acrylic resin. One-piece abutments with 5.5 mm in length and 6 degrees of convergence were secured into the analogs. The experimental frameworks were fabricated using either subtractive CAD/CAM milling (by wax, soft or hard metal), additive rapid prototyping (by wax), or conventional pattern fabrication (by wax [control] or acrylic resin). Wax and acrylic resin patterns were casted in Ni-Cr alloy. Marginal discrepancy was measured in 12 points by video measuring machine.

Statistical Analysis One-way ANOVA and posthoc tests were used to detect any significant difference among the groups at α= 0.05.

Results There was a statistically significant difference among the marginal discrepancy of six groups (p = 0.018). The Tukey test indicated a significant difference between CAD/milling of soft metal and conventional wax pattern groups (p = 0.011); a significant difference was also reported between CAD/milling of wax patterns and control group (p = 0.046).

Conclusions Frameworks fabricated by conventional wax-up showed the largest marginal gaps, while the marginal gap created by frameworks made of soft metal CAD/milling were the smallest. In addition, frameworks fabricated by rapid prototyping showed clinically acceptable adaptations.

Keywords

dental implants - dental marginal adaptation - dental materials - computer-aided design - metal ceramic alloys
 

  • References

  • 1 Siadat H, Mirfazaelian A, Alikhasi M. Scanning electron microscope evaluation of marginal discrepancy of gold and base metal implant-supported prostheses with three fabrication methods. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2008; 8 (03) 148-153
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 de Torres EM, Rodrigues RC, de Mattos MdaG, Ribeiro RF. The effect of commercially pure titanium and alternative dental alloys on the marginal fit of one-piece cast implant frameworks. J Dent 2007; 35 (10) 800-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R, Yates DM, Izutani N, Enkling N, Blatz MB. In vitro precision of fit of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing titanium and zirconium dioxide bars. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (09) 945-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yeo IS, Yang JH, Lee JB. In vitro marginal fit of three all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90 (05) 459-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81 (01) 7-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Manicone PF, Rossi Iommetti P, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 2007; 35 (11) 819-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Oyagüe RC, Sánchez-Turrión A, López-Lozano JF, Suárez-García MJ. Vertical discrepancy and microleakage of laser-sintered and vacuum-cast implant-supported structures luted with different cement types. J Dent 2012; 40 (02) 123-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Oyagüe RC, Turrión AS, Toledano M, Monticelli F, Osorio R. In vitro vertical misfit evaluation of cast frameworks for cement-retained implant-supported partial prostheses. J Dent 2009; 37 (01) 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tabesh M, Alikhasi M, Siadat H. A comparison of implant impression precision: different materials and techniques. J Clin Exp Dent 2018; 10 (02) e151-e157
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Albert FE, El-Mowafy OM. Marginal adaptation and microleakage of Procera AllCeram crowns with four cements. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17 (05) 529-535
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nawafleh NA, Mack F, Evans J, Mackay J, Hatamleh MM. Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review. J Prosthodont 2013; 22 (05) 419-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pettenò D, Schierano G, Bassi F, Bresciano ME, Carossa S. Comparison of marginal fit of 3 different metal-ceramic systems: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13 (05) 405-408
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sulaiman F, Chai J, Jameson LM, Wozniak WT. A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1997; 10 (05) 478-484
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Good M-L, Mitchell CA, Pintado MR, Douglas WH. Quantification of all-ceramic crown margin surface profile from try-in to 1-week post-cementation. J Dent 2009; 37 (01) 65-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Abduo J. Fit of CAD/CAM implant frameworks: a comprehensive review. J Oral Implantol 2014; 40 (06) 758-766
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennani V, Waddell N, Swain M. Fit of screw-retained fixed implant frameworks fabricated by different methods: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2011; 24 (03) 207-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Alikhasi M, Monzavi A, Bassir SH, Naini RB, Khosronedjad N, Keshavarz S. A comparison of precision of fit, rotational freedom, and torque loss with copy-milled zirconia and prefabricated titanium abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28 (04) 996-1002
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Rosenstiel SF, Land MF. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics JF. 4th ed.. St. Louis: Mosby; 2006. 562–579
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Sun J, Zhang FQ. The application of rapid prototyping in prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2012; 21 (08) 641-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Strub JR, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137 (09) 1289-1296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Witkowski S. (CAD-)/CAM in dental technology. Quintessence Dent Technol 2005; 28: 169-184
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37 (11) 866-876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tan PL, Gratton DG, Diaz-Arnold AM. Holmes DC. An in vitro comparison of vertical marginal gaps of CAD/CAM titanium and conventional cast restorations. J Prosthodont 2008; 17 (05) 378-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009; 28 (01) 44-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Farjood E, Vojdani M, Torabi K, Khaledi AA. Marginal and internal fit of metal copings fabricated with rapid prototyping and conventional waxing. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117 (01) 164-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Han HS, Yang HS, Lim HP, Park YJ. Marginal accuracy and internal fit of machine-milled and cast titanium crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 106 (03) 191-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Vojdani M, Torabi K, Farjood E, Khaledi A. Comparison the marginal and internal fit of metal copings cast from wax patterns fabricated by CAD/CAM and conventional wax up techniques. J Dent (Shiraz) 2013; 14 (03) 118-129
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Eftekhar Ashtiani R, Nasiri Khanlar L, Mahshid M, Moshaverinia A. Comparison of dimensional accuracy of conventionally and digitally manufactured intracoronal restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (02) 233-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kim EH, Lee DH, Kwon SM, Kwon TY. A microcomputed tomography evaluation of the marginal fit of cobalt-chromium alloy copings fabricated by new manufacturing techniques and alloy systems. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117 (03) 393-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Nejatidanesh F, Shakibamehr AH, Savabi O. Comparison of marginal and internal adaptation of CAD/CAM and conventional cement retained implant-supported single crowns. Implant Dent 2016; 25 (01) 103-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ghodsi S, Pirmoazen S, Beyabanaki E, Rostami M, Alikhasi M. The effect of milling metal versus milling wax on implant framework retention and adaptation. J Prosthodont 2019; 28 (02) e739-e743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (03) 555-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Xu D, Xiang N, Wei B. The marginal fit of selective laser melting-fabricated metal crowns: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (06) 1437-1440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Lalande D, Hodd JA, Brousseau JS, Ramos V, Dunham D, Rueggeberg F. Marginal discrepancy dimensions of single unit metal crowns fabricated by using CAD-CAM-milled acrylate resin polymer blocks or a conventional waxing technique. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (06) 948-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nesse H, Ulstein DM, Vaage MM, Øilo M. Internal and marginal fit of cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses fabricated with 3 different techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114 (05) 686-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Afify A, Haney S, Verrett R, Mansueto M, Cray J, Johnson R. Marginal discrepancy of noble metal-ceramic fixed dental prosthesis frameworks fabricated by conventional and digital technologies. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (02) 307.e1-307.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Park JK, Kim HY, Kim WC, Kim JH. Evaluation of the fit of metal ceramic restorations fabricated with a pre-sintered soft alloy. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116 (06) 909-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Zeltser C, Lewinstein I, Grajower R. Fit of crown wax patterns after removal from the die. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53 (03) 344-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Borba M, Cesar PF, Griggs JA, Della Bona Á. Adaptation of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (11) 1119-1126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Moldovan O, Luthardt RG, Corcodel N, Rudolph H. Three-dimensional fit of CAD/CAM-made zirconia copings. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (12) 1273-1278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Akçin ET, Güncü MB, Aktaş G, Aslan Y. Effect of manufacturing techniques on the marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium implant-supported multiunit frameworks. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120 (05) 715-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Arora A, Yadav A, Upadhyaya V, Jain P, Verma M. Comparison of marginal and internal adaptation of copings fabricated from three different fabrication techniques: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018; 18 (02) 102-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Johnson R, Verrett R, Haney S, Mansueto M, Challa S. Marginal gap of milled versus cast gold restorations. J Prosthodont 2017; 26 (01) 56-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Patil A, Singh K, Sahoo S, Suvarna S, Kumar P, Singh A. Comparative assessment of marginal accuracy of grade II titanium and Ni-Cr alloy before and after ceramic firing: An in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2013; 7 (03) 272-277
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971; 131 (03) 107-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar