Marginal discrepancy of noble metal–ceramic fixed dental prosthesis frameworks fabricated by conventional and digital technologies

Publication date: Available online 15 November 2017
Source:The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Author(s): Ahmed Afify, Stephan Haney, Ronald Verrett, Michael Mansueto, James Cray, Russell Johnson
Statement of problemStudies evaluating the marginal adaptation of available computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) noble alloys for metal–ceramic prostheses are lacking.PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the vertical marginal adaptation of cast, milled, and direct metal laser sintered (DMLS) noble metal–ceramic 3-unit fixed partial denture (FDP) frameworks before and after fit adjustments.Material and methodsTwo typodont teeth were prepared for metal–ceramic FDP abutments. An acrylic resin pattern of the prepared teeth was fabricated and cast in nickel-chromium (Ni-Cr) alloy. Each specimen group (cast, milled, DMLS) was composed of 12 casts made from 12 impressions (n=12). A single design for the FDP substructure was created on a laboratory scanner and used for designing the specimens in the 3 groups. Each specimen was fitted to its corresponding cast by using up to 5 adjustment cycles, and marginal discrepancies were measured on the master Ni-Cr model before and after laboratory fit adjustments.ResultsThe milled and DMLS groups had smaller marginal discrepancy measurements than those of the cast group (P<.001). Significant differences were found in the number of adjustments among the groups, with the milled group requiring the minimum number of adjustments, followed by the DMLS and cast groups (F=30.643, P<.001).ConclusionsMetal–ceramic noble alloy frameworks fabricated by using a CAD-CAM workflow had significantly smaller marginal discrepancies compared with those with a traditional cast workflow, with the milled group demonstrating the best marginal fit among the 3 test groups. Manual refining significantly enhanced the marginal fit of all groups. All 3 groups demonstrated marginal discrepancies within the range of clinical acceptability.



http://ift.tt/2zMmG0q