| Literature DB >> 36134963 |
Hakjun Lee1, Keunbada Son2, Du-Hyeong Lee1, So-Yeun Kim1, Kyu-Bok Lee1.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the wear volume of interim crowns fabricated using digital light processing 3D printing according to the printing angle. A total of five patients undergoing the placement of a single crown on the mandibular molar were included. Interim crowns were fabricated directly in the oral cavity using the conventional method. A digital light processing 3D printer was then used to fabricate crowns with build angles of 0, 45, and 90 degrees. Therefore, four fabricated interim crowns were randomly delivered to the patients, and each was used for one week. Before and after use, the intaglio surfaces of the interim crowns were scanned using a 3D scanner. The volume changes before and after use were measured, and changes in the height of the occlusal surface were evaluated using the root mean square value. Data normality was verified by statistical analysis, and the wear volume in each group was evaluated using a one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference test (α = 0.05). Compared with the RMS values of the conventional method (11.88 ± 2.69 µm) and the 3D-printing method at 0 degrees (12.14 ± 2.38 µm), the RMS values were significantly high at 90 degrees (16.46 ± 2.39 µm) (p < 0.05). Likewise, there was a significant difference in the change in volume between the groups (p = 0.002), with a significantly higher volume change value at 90 degrees (1.74 ± 0.41 mm3) than in the conventional method (0.70 ± 0.15 mm3) (p < 0.05). A printing angle of 90 degrees is not recommended when interim crowns are fabricated using digital light processing 3D printing.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; digital light processing; in vivo study; interim crown; wear
Year: 2022 PMID: 36134963 PMCID: PMC9495768 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9090417
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Figure 1Study design.
The profiles of the participants.
| No. | Sex | Age | Abutment | Antagonist | Endo. | Etc. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | 23 | #46 | #15, 16 | O | - |
| 2 | M | 31 | #36 | #25, 26 | O | - |
| 3 | F | 57 | #37 | #26, 27 | O | - |
| 4 | F | 20 | #47 | #16, 17 | O | - |
| 5 | F | 41 | #36 | #25, 26 | O | - |
| 6 | M | 24 | #37 | #26, 27 | O | Dropped out owing to frequent crown fracture. |
Interim crown material.
| Group | Product Name | Method | Manufacturer | LOT Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional group | UNIFAST III | Self-cured | GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan | 2004171 |
| 3D-printing group | RAYDENT C&B | DLP 3D printing | Ray Co., Ltd., Hwaseong-si, Korea | RCB209082B |
Figure 2Digital light processing 3D-printing build angles.
Figure 33D analysis procedure. (A) Segmented virtual model of the interim crown before wear. (B) Virtual model of the interim crown after wear. (C) Superimposition. (D) Evaluation of wear on the segmented occlusal surface of (A).
Comparison of the wear of interim crowns fabricated according to build angle (RMS (µm)).
| Build angle | Mean | SD | 95% Confidence Interval | Minimum | Maximum | Comparison ** | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Conventional method | 11.88 | 2.69 | 8.53 | 15.22 | 7.70 | 14.80 | A |
| 0 degree | 12.14 | 2.38 | 9.17 | 15.10 | 9.7 | 15.50 | A |
| 45 degrees | 13.78 | 1.29 | 12.17 | 15.38 | 11.80 | 15.10 | AB |
| 90 degrees | 16.46 | 2.39 | 13.49 | 19.42 | 13.20 | 18.90 | B |
| F | 4.363 | ||||||
|
| 0.02 * | ||||||
RMS, root mean square; SD, standard deviation. * Significance was determined using one-way ANOVA; p < 0.05. ** The letters (A and B) were determined using Tukey’s HSD test; p < 0.05.
Figure 4Comparison of the root mean square and wear volume according to build angle: (A) root mean square and (B) wear volume. The letters (a and b) were determined using Tukey’s HSD test; p < 0.05.
Comparison of the wear of interim crowns fabricated according to build angle (volume (mm3)).
| Build Angle | Mean | SD | 95% Confidence Interval | Minimum | Maximum | Comparison ** | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Conventional method | 0.70 | 0.15 | 0.50 | 0.89 | 0.50 | 0.90 | A |
| 0 degree | 1.22 | 0.63 | 0.43 | 2.00 | 0.20 | 1.70 | AB |
| 45 degrees | 1.32 | 0.48 | 0.71 | 1.92 | 0.60 | 1.90 | AB |
| 90 degrees | 1.74 | 0.41 | 1.22 | 2.25 | 1.30 | 2.4 | B |
| F | 4.367 | ||||||
|
| 0.020 * | ||||||
RMS, root mean square; SD, standard deviation. * Significance was determined using one-way ANOVA; p < 0.05. ** The letters (A and B) were determined using Tukey’s HSD test; p < 0.05.
Figure 5Comparison of 3D wear according to build angle. (A) Conventional method. (B) 3D-printing build angle of 0 degree. (C) 3D-printing build angle of 45 degrees. (D) 3D-printing build angle of 90 degrees.