Overall fit of anterior and posterior single crown substructures fabricated with different additive manufacturing and conventional techniques
Odontology, cilt.114, sa.3, ss.1196-1206, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 114 Sayı: 3
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s10266-025-01178-2
- Dergi Adı: Odontology
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Natural Science Collection (ProQuest), Biological Science Database (ProQuest), Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition (EBSCO), Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest), Pharma Collection (ProQuest)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1196-1206
- Anahtar Kelimeler: 3D printing, Additive manufacturing, CAD-CAM, Internal fit, Marginal fit
- Hacettepe Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Marginal and internal fit of single crowns is critical for clinical success. Further research is necessary to investigate the effects of various conventional and additive/subtractive manufacturing techniques on restoration fit, particularly for different tooth types. This in vitro study compared the fit of anterior and posterior crown substructures fabricated using five techniques: milled wax patterns for casting (CAW), 3D-printed polymer patterns for casting (3DP), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), selective laser melting (SLM), and manual wax carving (Cast). The maxillary lateral and first molar teeth were prepared on a polyamide model, and substructures were designed after scanning. Cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) specimens were fabricated for each technique (n = 10). Discrepancies were measured using the silicone replica technique and analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (α =.05). The 3DP group exhibited the highest overall discrepancies, while DMLS had the highest for molars, and DMLS, Cast, and SLM had the highest for laterals, respectively (p < 0.05). Tooth type significantly affected chamfer (p = 0.023, partial η2 = 0.283), axial (p = 0.009, partial η2 = 0.017), and incisal/occlusal discrepancies (p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.083). Significant differences were noted among fabrication techniques regarding overall, marginal, chamfer, axial, and incisal/occlusal discrepancies (p < 0.001). The DMLS technique showed results comparable to manual wax carving, demonstrating superior marginal and internal adaptation in posterior substructures (p < 0.05).