RESUMO
A method is described for designing, fabricating and implementing sequential template immediate loading protocols for dual arch implant therapy. A 41-year-old medically-free patient with terminal dentition was treated following stackable guide loading protocols for maxillary and mandibular arches. Implants were placed following extractions and immediately loaded with full arch fixed prostheses. Healing was uneventful and all implants integrated successfully. Special consideration was given to the design and clinical challenges when implementing stackable guide protocols for dual arch implant therapy.
RESUMO
Introduction: Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technologies have been increasingly used to fabricate provisional restorations in recent years. This study assessed how build orientation influences the fracture resistance and marginal quality of 3D-printed crowns compared with milled provisional crowns. Methods: The test group included 3D-printed crowns (Freeprint temp Shade A2, Detax, Ettlingen, Germany), which were further subdivided based on print orientation (0°, 45°, and 90°; n = 10 for each subgroup). The control group (n = 10) included milled crowns (Coratemp, White Peaks, Germany) with the same design as those of the test group. The margin quality of each crown was assessed at 60 × magnification using a digital stereomicroscope. A load-to-fracture test was performed by applying a force at a rate of 2 mm/min to assess fracture resistance. One sample from each subgroup was also subjected to scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. Results: The milled group exhibited the highest fracture resistance and marginal quality. Within the printed subgroups, the 0° group showed the best mean marginal quality, whereas the 90° group showed the lowest mean marginal quality (p < 0.05). Within the test groups, the 90° group had the highest mean fracture resistance (p < 0.05). In the SEM analysis, the milled group exhibited the most homogenous boundaries, whereas among the 3D-printed subgroups, the samples printed at 0° had the best margin quality. Conclusion: The manufacturing method significantly influences the marginal quality and fracture resistance. Milled crowns demonstrated superior marginal quality and fracture resistance compared to those of 3D printed crowns. Furthermore, the print orientation of 0° led to the best marginal quality, whereas printing at 90° led to the highest fracture resistance.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Many elastomeric impressions sent to commercial laboratory dental technicians may include marginal defects. To fabricate accurate restorations, digital technology may be used to merge digital files of defective impressions into a single standard tessellation language (STL) file free of errors. This would save clinicians and patients time and may improve clinical care. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital master casts reconstructed from merged STL files of defective impressions with the file of the original defect-free preparations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ivorine teeth on a dentoform were prepared to receive a posterior fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) with complete coverage preparations. An impression was made in a stock tray using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material and an extraoral scanner (E3, 3Shape, Denmark) was used to digitize the impression; this was the reference cast. Wax was used to create defects on the buccal and lingual margins of the preparations. Fifteen PVS impressions were made of the FDP preparations with defects in the mesial and distal margins; another set of 15 PVS impressions was made of FDP preparations with defects in the buccal and palatal margins for a total of 30 impressions. All impressions were digitized using the same extraoral scanner (E3, 3Shape, Denmark). Corresponding STL files were paired and merged, and a master cast was created by eliminating the defects using the scanned data. This master cast was compared to the reference cast using reverse engineering software (Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA). The results were expressed as average errors and standard deviations in the master casts relative to the reference cast. To account for the presence of positive and negative values in the data set, in terms of errors, the root mean square (RMS) value was calculated for each sample. RESULTS: The mean average error in the sample was -0.4 µm. The average upper limit of 95% confidence interval was +36.5 µm, while the average lower limit of 95% confidence interval was -37.3 µm. The mean RMS of the errors found was 18.9 µm. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicated that merging digitized definitive impressions to correct marginal defects resulted in master casts with a high level of accuracy relative to the reference cast.