The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluating the Marginal and Internal Discrepancy of Nickel–Chrome Copings Made on Fixed Partial Denture Implants with Conventional and 3D Printing Techniques

Mohsen Ziaei, Farshad Bajoghli, Mahmoud Sabouhi, Mohammad Jowkar, Farshad Nadian, Farbod Manshaei

Keywords : Internal discrepancy, Internal gap, Marginal discrepancy, 3D printing

Citation Information : Ziaei M, Bajoghli F, Sabouhi M, Jowkar M, Nadian F, Manshaei F. Evaluating the Marginal and Internal Discrepancy of Nickel–Chrome Copings Made on Fixed Partial Denture Implants with Conventional and 3D Printing Techniques. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (11):826-833.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3586

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 11-01-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the marginal and internal discrepancy of nickel–chrome (Ni–Cr) copings made on implant bridges with conventional and 3D printing techniques. Materials and methods: 30 three-unit Ni–Cr FDPs (60 copings) were made by 3D-printing technique (PolyJet group), lost-wax method with die spacer technique (die spacer group), and lost-wax method with burn-out the cap (burn-out cap group). Then, the frames obtained from the three methods were checked to examine the marginal discrepancy by stereomicroscope after preparation and polishing. The silicon replica method was used to investigate the internal discrepancy at 6 points (buccal portion of occlusal surface, lingual portion of occlusal surface, middle area of the axial surface in the lingual, middle area of the axial surface in the buccal, cervico-buccal area, and cervico-lingual area). Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed first to estimate the normality of data distribution. A one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test were done for comparing marginal and internal discrepancies between groups. The significant level was considered p < 0.05. Results: The mean ± standard deviation of marginal discrepancy in the PolyJet group, die spacer group, and burn-out cap group was 37.9 ± 15, 68.8 ± 31.8 and 42.7 ± 3.6 µm for buccal margins and 40.4 ± 12.3, 64 ± 21.7, and 42.4 ± 2.1 µm for lingual margins, respectively. The means of buccal and lingual marginal discrepancy in the burn-out cap group and PolyJet group were significantly lower than the die spacer group (p < 0.001). Marginal discrepancy was not statistically different between the burn-out cap group and the PolyJet group. The mean ± standard deviation of overall internal discrepancy in the PolyJet group, die spacer group, and burn-out cap group was 64.6 ± 3.7, 72 ± 22.2, and 58.7 ± 2 µm, respectively. There was a significant difference between the mean of internal discrepancy between three groups (p = 0.001). The mean of internal discrepancy of the burn-out cap group was significantly lower than the die spacer group (p = 0.001) and PolyJet group (p = 0.005). Internal discrepancy was not significantly different between the PolyJet group and the die spacer group (p = 0.168). Conclusion: The marginal and internal gap rates of the three groups were within clinically acceptable limits. The 3D printing technique and lost-wax method with burn-out the cap had the lowest buccal and lingual marginal discrepancies. The burn-out cap method had better fitness and less internal discrepancy than 3D printing and die spacer groups. Clinical significance: Lower marginal discrepancy of copings fabricated by using 3D printed patterns may improve clinical success of implant restoration.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Gap M. The accuracy of fit of crowns made from wax patterns produced conventionally (hand formed) and via CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2016;24:7–10.
  2. Prabhu R, Prabhu G, Baskaran E, et al. Clinical acceptability of metal-ceramic fixed partial dental prosthesis fabricated with direct metal laser sintering technique-5 year follow-up. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16(2):193–197. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.176526.
  3. Bhaskaran E, Azhagarasan N, Miglani S, et al. Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal gap of Co–Cr copings fabricated from conventional wax pattern, 3D printed resin pattern and DMLS tech: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13(3):189–195. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-013-0283-5.
  4. Farjood E, Vojdani M, Torabi K, et al. Marginal and internal fit of metal copings fabricated with rapid prototyping and conventional waxing. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(1):164–170. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.010.
  5. Vojdani M, Torabi K, Farjood E, et al. Comparison the marginal and internal fit of metal copings cast from wax patterns fabricated by CAD/CAM and conventional wax up techniques. J Dent (Shiraz) 2013;14(3):118–129. PMID: 24724133.
  6. Zeltser C, Lewinstein I, Grajower R. Fit of crown wax patterns after removal from the die. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53(3):344–346. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90507-4.
  7. Jain R, Supriya BS, Gupta K. Recent trends of 3-D printing in dentistry-a review. Ann Prosthodont Rest Dent 2016;2(1):101–104.
  8. Sawhney H, Jose AA. 3D Printing in Dentistry—Sculpting the Way It Is. J Sci Tech Res 2018;8:1–4.
  9. Dawood A, Marti BM, Sauret-Jackson V, et al. 3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J 2015;219(11):521–529. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.914.
  10. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: Deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. Am Dent Assoc 2009;140(10):1301–1304. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054.
  11. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(3):555–560. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.002.
  12. Gardner FM. Margins of complete crowns—literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48(4):396–400. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(82)90072-5.
  13. Beuer F, Aggstaller H, Richter J, et al. Influence of preparation angle on marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia crown copings. Quintessence Int 2009;40(3):243–250. PMID: 19417888.
  14. Sorensen JA. A rationale for comparison of plaque-retaining properties of crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62(3):264–269. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90329-6.
  15. James RA. Periodontal considerations in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30(2):202–209. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(73)90056-5.
  16. Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12(4):527–540. PMID: 9274082.
  17. Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H, et al. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw-or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15(2):239–246. PMID: 10795456
  18. Ericsson I, Persson L, Berglundh T, et al. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22(3):255–261. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb00143.x.
  19. Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49(6):843–848. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-x.
  20. Kim M-J, Choi Y-J, Kim S-K, et al. Marginal Accuracy and Internal Fit of 3-D Printing Laser-Sintered Co-Cr Alloy Copings. Materials (Basel) 2017;10(1):93. DOI: 10.3390/ma10010093.
  21. Lövgren N, Roxner R, Klemendz S, et al. Effect of production method on surface roughness, marginal and internal fit, and retention of cobalt-chromium single crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118(1):95–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.025.
  22. Afify A, Haney S, Verrett R, et al. Marginal discrepancy of noble metal-ceramic fixed dental prosthesis frameworks fabricated by conventional and digital technologies. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(2):307.e1–307.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.08.012.
  23. Papadiochou S, Pissiotis AL. Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: A systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(4):545–551. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.001.
  24. Kocaağaoğlu H, Albayrak H, Cinel Sahin S, et al. Evaluation of marginal adaptation in three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and powder-free digital impression techniques. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11(5):262–270. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.262.
  25. Wee AG, Aquilino SA, Schneider RL. Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: A review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12(2):167–178. PMID: 10371920.
  26. Kallus T, Bessing C. Loose gold screws frequently occur in full-arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants after 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9(2):169–178. PMID: 8206552.
  27. Cheshire P, Hobkirk J. An in vivo quantitative analysis of the fit of Nobel Biocare implant superstructures. J Oral Rehabil 1996;23(11):782–789. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1996.d01-193.x.
  28. Jemt T. In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11(2):151–158. PMID: 8666445.
  29. Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11(5):620–625. PMID: 8908860.
  30. Kunavisarut C, Lang LA, Stoner BR, et al. Finite element analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit. J Prosthodont 2002;11(1):30–40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2002.00030.x.
  31. Trifkovic B, Budak I, Todorovic A, et al. Application of replica technique and SEM in accuracy measurement of ceramic crowns. Measurement Science Review 2012;12(3): 90–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10048-012-0016-7.
  32. Nesse H, Ulstein DMÅ, Vaage MM, et al. Internal and marginal fit of cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses fabricated with 3 different techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(5):686–692. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.05.007.
  33. Son K, Lee S, Kang SH, et al. A comparison study of marginal and internal fit assessment methods for fixed dental prostheses. J Clin Med 2019;8(6):785. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8060785.
  34. Kim K-B, Kim W-C, Kim H-Y, et al. An evaluation of marginal fit of three-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated by direct metal laser sintering system. Dent Mater 2013;29(7):e91–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.04.007.
  35. Peddi S, Taduri V, Shivakumar A. Comparison of marginal and internal defects of indirect inlay patterns fabricated using additive manufacturing and traditional methods – an ex vivo study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2019;27(2):66–75. DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_01877Peddi10.
  36. Al-Saleh S, Vohra F, Albogami SM, et al. Marginal misfit of 3d-printed (selective laser sintered), CAD-CAM and lost wax technique cobalt chromium copings with shoulder and chamfer finish lines: An in-vitro study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2022;58(10):1313. DOI: 10.3390/medicina58101313.
  37. Kane LM, Chronaios D, Sierraalta M, et al. Marginal and internal adaptation of milled cobalt-chromium copings. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(5):680–685. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.020.
  38. Arora A, Yadav A, Upadhyaya V, et al. Comparison of marginal and internal adaptation of copings fabricated from three different fabrication techniques: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(2):102–107. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_327_17.
  39. Shah N, Badwaik P, Sheth VH, et al. Effect of different finish line preparations on the marginal and internal adaptation of cobalt-chromium metal alloy copings fabricated by using CAD-CAM technology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2022;127(5):716–728.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.030.
  40. Kalsekar BG, Gandhi PV, Patil R, et al. Comparative evaluation of retention and vertical marginal accuracy of co–cr copings fabricated using three different techniques: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022;23(10):991–997. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3399.
  41. Kim D-Y, Kim C-M, Kim J-H, et al. Evaluation of marginal and internal gaps of Ni-Cr and Co-Cr alloy copings manufactured by microstereolithography. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9(3):176–181. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2017.9.3.176.
  42. Soriani NC, Leal MB, Paulino SM, et al. Effect of the use of die spacer on the marginal fit of copings cast in NiCr, NiCrBe and commercially pure titanium. Braz Dent J 2007;18(3):225–230. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402007000300009.
  43. Pedroche LO, Bernardes SR, Leão MP, et al. Marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained using different digital scanning methods. Braz Oral Res 2016;30(1):e113. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0113.
  44. Mai HN, Lee KB, Lee DH. Fit of interim crowns fabricated using photopolymer-jetting 3D printing. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118(2):208–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.030.
  45. Pompa G, Di Carlo S, De Angelis F, et al. Comparison of conventional methods and laser-assisted rapid prototyping for manufacturing fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:318097. DOI: 10.1155/2015/318097.
  46. Doddy L, Reddy S, Reddy S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the marginal adaptation of cast Ni-Cr copings, direct metal laser sintering Co-Cr copings, and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing Zr copings: An In-vitro study. Cureus 2019;11(11):e6091. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.6091.
  47. Sharma M, Bansal A, Panthi S, et al. To evaluate the marginal fit of metal copings fabricated by conventional casting procedure and direct metal laser sintering technology–an in vitro study. Dental J Adv Stud 2017;5(01):039–046. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1672079.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.