4.5 Article

Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 283-289

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1513-5

关键词

CAD/CAM; Intraoral scanner; Fixed dental prostheses; Zirconia; Cobalt-chromium alloy; Digital impression; Marginal fit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To evaluate the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-generated frameworks for 4-unit, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) from zirconia (Z) and cobalt-chromium alloy (C) made with conventional (CI) and digital impressions (DI). Materials and methods A titaniummodel was digitizedwith an intraoral scanner (DI, LAVA (TM) C.O.S.; 3M ESPE; Seefeld, Germany; n = 12). Additionally, 12 conventional impressions were taken, and referring plaster casts were digitized by a laboratory-scanner (CI, LAVA T Scan ST; 3M ESPE; n = 12). Frameworks were fabricated (3M ESPE) from cobalt-chromium (DI-C, n = 12; CI-C, n = 12) and zirconia (DI-Z, n = 12; CI-Z, n = 12) from the same datasets. A replica technique was applied to measure the accuracy. The Mann-Whitney U statistical test was applied to detect statistical differences between each material and methodology groups in terms of fit. Results Frameworks from DI-C (median 19.07 mu m) showed significantly better marginal fit than CI-C (median 64.64 mu m, p < 0.001). Frameworks from DI-Z (median 52.50 mu m) showed significantly better marginal fit than CI-Z (median 72.94 mu m, p = 0.001). Additionally, frameworks from DI-C showed a significantly better marginal fit than DI-Z (p < 0.001). Conclusions CI and DI led to a clinically acceptable marginal fit of 4-unit FDPs from cobalt-chromium and zirconia. DI leads to better marginal fit of the cobalt-chromium frameworks; however, no effect on zirconia was found. Clinical relevance The results indicate that DI is suitable for fabricating 4-unit, cobalt-chromium and zirconia frameworks with regard to fit requirements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据