Comparison of the flexural and surface properties of milled, 3D-printed, and heat polymerized PMMA resins for denture bases: An in vitro study.

PURPOSE: To compare the flexural properties and the adhesion of Lactobacillus salivarius (LS), Streptococcus mutans (SM), and Candida albicans (CA) on heat-polymerized (CV), CAD-CAM milled (CAD), or 3D-printed (3D) Poly (methylmethacrylate) (PMMA). METHODS: Ultimate Flexural Strength (UFS), Flexural Strain (FS) (%) at Flexural Strength, and Flexural Modulus (FM) of specimens (65.0×10.0×3.3 mm) from each PMMA group (n=6) were calculated by using the 3-point bending test. The surface roughness profiles (R) were measured before and after polishing with a contact profilometer. LS, SM, and CA adhesion on PMMA specimens (n=18) (10 mm in diameter, 3 mm in height) was assessed after 90 minutes and 16 hours by using scanning electron microscopy. The Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc analysis was performed to compare the groups (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: Mean UFS values were 80.79±7.64 MPa for CV, 110.23±5.03 MPa for CAD, and 87.34±6.39 MPa for 3D. Mean FS values were 4.37±1.04% for CV, 4.71±0.62% for CAD, and 6.19±0.13 % for 3D. Mean FM values were 2542±301 MPa for CV, 3435±346 MPa for CAD, and 2371±197 MPa for 3D. CAD had the lowest average R value (0.29±0.16 µm) before polishing, and bacterial adhesion after 90 minutes of incubation. R value and microbial adhesion were not different amongst groups after polishing and 16 hours of incubation, respectively. CONCLUSION: The CAD group displayed the best flexural properties, except for FS, the lowest roughness before polishing and bacterial adhesion after 90 minutes of incubation. All tested PMMAs had similar surface roughness after polishing, and microbial adhesion after 16 hours of incubation.

Automatic Digital Design of the Occlusal Anatomy of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns Compared to Dental Technicians' Digital Waxing: A Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Reconstructing the occlusal morphology of posterior teeth in definitive dental prosthesis can be challenging. The use of the correlation technique enables replication of the information and occlusal anatomy of interim dental prostheses to the definitive ones. The purpose of this controlled clinical trial was to compare the static and dynamic contacts (SDC) of monolithic zirconia crowns designed with correlation and library techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients were included in the study for a total of 28 molars. For each abutment tooth, an interim crown was fabricated and two digital scans, with and without the interim crown in place were made. Two single crowns were designed using correlation and library techniques. Fifty-six monolithic zirconia crowns were milled. The interim and definitive crowns were evaluated intraorally for SDC by using a 24-µm-thick blue articulating foil. After removing the interim and definite crowns, extraoral photographs were taken to calculate the SDC area using software (ImageJ) and analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: The average and ± standard deviation (SD) of area of the occlusal marks on interim crowns was 32.27 ± 3.45 mm2 . Definitive crowns designed by using the correlation technique had an area of 31.01 ± 3.73 mm2 ; the area in the library technique was 36.85 ± 5.78 mm2 . No statistically significant difference was found (p = 0.091) between the occlusal mark areas of the interim and definitive crowns designed by using the correlation technique. Whereas, there were significant differences between the areas of occlusal marks of the interim and definitive crowns designed by using the library technique, and between the areas of occlusal marks of definitive crowns designed by using the correlation and library techniques (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The average area of the SDC of monolithic zirconia crowns designed by using the correlation technique was similar to that of interim crowns. The library technique was less effective when replicating the SDC compared to the correlation technique.

Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to verify and compare the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions obtained using two intraoral scanners and three scanning methodologies. METHODS: A resin model created with dental 3-D printing was scanned by a reference scanner (Zfx Evolution - Zimmer Biomet, Palm Beach Gardens, FL) in order to obtain a 3D reference; the same resin model was then scanned with two different intraoral scanners (Zfx IntraScan and Carestream 3600 - CS 3600®, Carestream, Rochester, NY, USA) using: Technique A (from tooth #27 up to tooth #17); Technique B (from tooth #11 up to tooth #17 and then from tooth #21 up to tooth #27) and Technique C (from tooth #22 up to tooth #17, and then from tooth #12 up to tooth #27 - the MeshLab software v. 1.3.3 was then used to match the two scans). The scans obtained were superimposed over the reference scan by means of a software, and the volumetric discrepancies were calculated. RESULTS: The mean results for the Zfx Intrascan scanner were: Technique A = 302.47 ± 37.42 µm; Technique B = 180.45 ± 29.86 µm; Technique C = 147.34 ± 28.23 µm. The mean results for the Carestream 3600 scanner were: Technique A = 303.59 ± 40.20 µm; Technique B = 181.53 ± 29.61 µm; Technique C = 142.28 ± 35.33 µm. Technique C, used by both scanners, produced less volumetric discrepancies compared to the other techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The scanning technique had a statistically significant effect on the quality of the scan (p< 0.0001), whereas the scanner did not present any significant influence (p= 0.91).

Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of the study was to verify and compare the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions obtained using two intraoral scanners and three scanning methodologies. Methods: A resin model created with dental 3-D printing was scanned by a reference scanner (Zfx Evolution - Zimmer Biomet, Palm Beach Gardens, FL) in order to obtain a 3D reference; the same resin model was then scanned with two different intraoral scanners (Zfx IntraScan and Carestream 3600 - CS 3600®, Carestream, Rochester, NY, USA) using: Technique A (from tooth #27 up to tooth #17); Technique B (from tooth #11 up to tooth #17 and then from tooth #21 up to tooth #27) and Technique C (from tooth #22 up to tooth #17, and then from tooth #12 up to tooth #27 - the MeshLab software v. 1.3.3 was then used to match the two scans). The scans obtained were superimposed over the reference scan by means of a software, and the volumetric discrepancies were calculated. Results: The mean results for the Zfx Intrascan scanner were: Technique A = 302.47 ± 37.42 µm; Technique B = 180.45 ± 29.86 µm; Technique C = 147.34 ± 28.23 µm. The mean results for the Carestream 3600 scanner were: Technique A = 303.59 ± 40.20 µm; Technique B = 181.53 ± 29.61 µm; Technique C = 142.28 ± 35.33 µm. Technique C, used by both scanners, produced less volumetric discrepancies compared to the other techniques. Conclusions: The scanning technique had a statistically significant effect on the quality of the scan (p< 0.0001), whereas the scanner did not present any significant influence (p= 0.91).

RESUMO Objetivo: o objetivo do presente estudo foi verificar e comparar a precisão de modelos digitais de uma arcada dentária completa obtidos utilizando-se dois tipos de scanners e três metodologias de digitalização. Métodos: um modelo de resina feito com impressão 3D foi digitalizado em um scanner de referência (Zfx Evolution - Zimmer Biomet, Palm Beach Gardens, FL) para se obter uma referência em 3D; o mesmo modelo de resina foi, então, digitalizado com dois scanners intrabucais diferentes (Zfx IntraScan e Carestream 3600 - CS 3600®, Carestream, Rochester, NY, EUA) utilizando: Técnica A (do dente #27 ao dente #17); Técnica B (do dente #11 ao dente #17 e, em seguida, do dente #21 ao dente #27); e Técnica C (do dente #22 ao dente #17 e, em seguida, do dente #12 ao dente #27 - osoftware MeshLab v. 1.3.3 foi, então, usado para mesclar as duas leituras). Em seguida, as imagens digitalizadas foram sobrepostas à imagem de referência, utilizando-se um software, e as discrepâncias volumétricas foram calculadas. Resultados: a média dos resultados para o scanner Zfx Intrascan foram: Técnica A = 302,47 ± 37,42 µm; Técnica B = 180,45 ± 29,86 µm; Técnica C = 147,34 ± 28,23 µm. A média dos resultados para o scanner Carestream 3600 foram: Técnica A= 303,59 ± 40,20 µm; Técnica B = 181,53 ± 29,61 µm; Técnica C = 142,28 ± 35,33 µm. A Técnica C, utilizada em ambos os scanners, produziu as menores discrepâncias volumétricas, quando comparada às outras técnicas. Conclusões: a técnica de digitalização teve um efeito estatisticamente significativo sobre a qualidade do modelo digital (p< 0,0001), enquanto o tipo de scanner usado não apresentou qualquer influência significativa (p= 0,91).