Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Comparative analysis of intaglio surface trueness of cement-retained implant-supported prostheses generated by a cast-free digital workflow and a three-dimensionally printed cast workflow

  • Ji-yu Hwang
    Affiliations
    Graduate student, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • Hyung-In Yoon
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author: Dr Hyung-In Yoon, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, 03080, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongro-gu, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA
    Affiliations
    Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
    Search for articles by this author
Published:September 27, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.020

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Comparative analysis of the accuracy of the prostheses produced by a cast-free digital workflow and 3-dimensional (3D) printing cast workflow is lacking.

      Purpose

      The purpose of the present investigation was to compare the intaglio surface trueness of implant-supported prostheses fabricated by using 3 different digital workflows: cast-free computer-aided design (CAD), 3D-printed cast CAD (direct insert), and 3D-printed cast CAD (indirect insert).

      Material and methods

      The laboratory data of 11 partially edentulous arches for prosthetic implant treatment were obtained. Three different workflows were tested to produce the cement-retained prostheses: cast-free CAD (Group CF), 3D-printed cast CAD with direct insert (Group PD), and 3D-printed cast CAD with indirect insert (Group PI). The intaglio surfaces of the prosthesis CAD data from Groups CF, PD, and PI were superimposed with 3D-printed prosthesis scan data from Group CF to measure 3D surface deviation. Using the prosthesis CAD data from Group CF as a reference, those from Groups PD and PI were compared by superimposition analysis. The root mean square (RMS) estimates, positive average deviations, and negative average deviations were measured. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn test with Bonferroni correction, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used for statistical analyses (α=.05).

      Results

      Significant differences were found among the 3 groups when the 3D-printed prosthesis scan data were referenced (P<.05). Group CF showed the lowest RMS, positive average deviation, and negative deviation values, while Group PI showed the highest values. Significant differences in the RMS, positive average deviation, and negative average deviation values were found between Groups PD and PI when the prosthesis CAD data (Group CF) were referenced (P<.05).

      Conclusions

      Among the 3 different workflows tested, the prostheses generated from the cast-free CAD flow showed significantly lower intaglio surface deviation than those generated from the 3D-printed cast CAD flows, regardless of the insertion method of the implant replicas.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Vandenberghe B.
        The crucial role of imaging in digital dentistry.
        Dent Mater. 2020; 36: 581-591
        • Banjar A.
        • Chen Y.W.
        • Kostagianni A.
        • Finkelman M.
        • Papathanasiou A.
        • Chochlidakis K.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of 3D printed implant casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla.
        J Prosthodont. 2021; 30: 783-788
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        • Chen C.J.
        • Hanssen S.
        • Naert I.
        • Vandenberghe B.
        Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: Accuracy outcomes.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 465-472
        • Gherlone E.
        • Capparé P.
        • Vinci R.
        • Ferrini F.
        • Gastaldi G.
        • Crespi R.
        Conventional versus digital impressions for ‘All-on-four’ restorations.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 324-330
        • Vandeweghe S.
        • Vervack V.
        • Dierens M.
        • De Bruyn H.
        Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: An in vitro study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 648-653
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Rajput N.
        • Kudara Y.
        • Weber H.P.
        Digital workflow for fixed implant rehabilitation of an extremely atrophic edentulous mandible in three appointments.
        J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017; 29: 178-188
        • Abduo J.
        • Lyons K.
        Rationale for the use of CAD/CAM technology in implant prosthodontics.
        Int J Dent. 2013; 2013: 768121
        • Osman R.B.
        • van der Veen A.J.
        • Huiberts D.
        • Wismeijer D.
        • Alharbi N.
        3D-printing zirconia implants; a dream or a reality? An in-vitro study evaluating the dimensional accuracy, surface topography and mechanical properties of printed zirconia implant and discs.
        J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017; 75: 521-528
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Chen Y.W.
        • Alshawaf B.
        • Kang K.
        • Finkelman M.
        • Chronopoulos V.
        • et al.
        Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 589-593
        • Yu B.Y.
        • Son K.
        • Lee K.B.
        Evaluation of intaglio surface trueness and margin quality of interim crowns in accordance with the build angle of stereolithography apparatus 3-dimensional printing.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 231-237
        • Prasad S.
        • Kader N.A.
        • Sujatha G.
        • Raj T.
        • Patil S.
        3D printing in dentistry.
        J 3D Print Med. 2018; 2: 89-91
        • Greco G.B.
        • Popi D.
        • Di Stefano D.A.
        Accuracy of 3-dimensional printing of dental casts: A proposal for quality standardization.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 127: 899-910
        • Akyalcin S.
        • Cozad B.E.
        • English J.D.
        • Colville C.D.
        • Laman S.
        Diagnostic accuracy of impression-free digital models.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144: 916-922
        • Ender A.
        • Mehl A.
        Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
        • Chen Y.W.
        • Moussi J.
        • Drury J.L.
        • Wataha J.C.
        Zirconia in biomedical applications.
        Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016; 13: 945-963
        • Ye H.
        • Ma Q.
        • Hou Y.
        • Li M.
        • Zhou Y.
        Generation and evaluation of 3D digital casts of maxillary defects based on multisource data registration: A pilot clinical study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 790-795
        • Patzelt S.B.M.
        • Lamprinos C.
        • Stampf S.
        • Att W.
        The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparative study.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145: 542-551
        • Lee S.J.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: Efficiency outcomes.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 111-115
        • Shim J.S.
        • Lee J.S.
        • Lee J.Y.
        • Choi Y.J.
        • Shin S.W.
        • Ryu J.J.
        Effect of software version and parameter settings on the marginal and internal adaptation of crowns fabricated with the CAD/CAM system.
        J Appl Oral Sci. 2015; 23: 515-522
        • Pfeiffer J.
        Dental CAD/CAM technologies: The optical impression (I).
        Int J Comput Dent. 1998; 1: 29-33
        • Buda M.
        • Bratos M.
        • Sorensen J.A.
        Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 913-918
        • Jang Y.
        • Sim J.Y.
        • Park J.K.
        • Kim W.C.
        • Kim H.Y.
        • Kim J.H.
        Accuracy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated on 3D-printed casts.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 135-142
        • Örtorp A.
        • Jönsson D.
        • Mouhsen A.
        • Vult von Steyern P.V.
        The fit of cobalt–chromium three-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated with four different techniques: A comparative in vitro study.
        Dent Mater. 2011; 27: 356-363
        • Liu Q.
        • Leu M.C.
        • Schmitt S.M.
        Rapid prototyping in dentistry: Technology and application.
        Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2006; 29: 317-335
        • Wang F.
        • Hao H.
        • Tang Q.
        • Lu Y.
        Comparative evaluation of the morphological accuracy of dental crowns fabricated by different technologies.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 645-650
        • Wang W.
        • Yu H.
        • Liu Y.
        • Jiang X.
        • Gao B.
        Trueness analysis of zirconia crowns fabricated with 3-dimensional printing.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 285-291
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Gonzalez-Martín Ó.
        • Pérez López J.
        • Sánchez-Rubio J.L.
        • Özcan M.
        Position Accuracy of Implant Analogs on 3D Printed Polymer versus Conventional Dental Stone Casts Measured Using a Coordinate Measuring Machine.
        J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 560-567
        • Olea-Vielba M.
        • Jareño-García D.
        • Methani M.M.
        • Martinez-Klemm I.
        • Revilla-León M.
        Accuracy of the implant replica positions on the complete edentulous additive manufactured cast.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 780-786
        • Gómez-Polo M.
        • Ballesteros J.
        • Perales-Padilla P.
        • Perales-Pulido P.
        • Gómez-Polo C.
        • Ortega R.
        Guided implant scanning: A procedure for improving the accuracy of implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 135-139
        • Roig E.
        • Roig M.
        • Garza L.C.
        • Costa S.
        • Maia P.
        • Espona J.
        Fit of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses produced from an intraoral scan by using an auxiliary device and from an elastomeric impression: A pilot clinical trial.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 17
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Ceballos L.
        • Martínez-Klemm I.
        • Özcan M.
        Discrepancy of complete-arch titanium frameworks manufactured using selective laser melting and electron beam melting additive manufacturing technologies.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 942-947
        • Rungrojwittayakul O.
        • Kan J.Y.
        • Shiozaki K.
        • Swamidass R.S.
        • Goodacre B.J.
        • Goodacre C.J.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of 3D printed models created by two technologies of printers with different designs of model base.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 124-128
        • Alharbi N.
        • Osman R.B.
        • Wismeijer D.
        Factors influencing the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed full-coverage dental restorations using stereolithography technology.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 503-510
        • Park C.
        • Kim M.H.
        • Hong S.M.
        • Go J.S.
        • Shin B.S.
        A study on the comparison mechanical properties of 3D printing prototypes with laminating direction.
        J Korean Soc Manuf Technol. 2015; 24: 334-341
        • Osman R.B.
        • Alharbi N.
        • Wismeijer D.
        Build angle: Does it influence the accuracy of 3D-printed dental restorations using digital light-processing technology?.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2017; 30: 182-188
        • Alharbi N.
        • Osman R.
        • Wismeijer D.
        Effects of build direction on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed complete coverage interim dental restorations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 760-767
        • Yilmaz B.
        • Kale E.
        • Johnston W.M.
        Marginal discrepancy of CAD-CAM complete-arch fixed implant-supported frameworks.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 65-70
        • Tahayeri A.
        • Morgan M.
        • Fugolin A.P.
        • Bompolaki D.
        • Athirasala A.
        • Pfeifer C.S.
        • et al.
        3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials.
        Dent Mater. 2018; 34: 192-200
        • Favero C.S.
        • English J.D.
        • Cozad B.E.
        • Wirthlin J.O.
        • Short M.M.
        • Kasper F.K.
        Effect of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed orthodontic models.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 152: 557-565
        • Stimmelmayr M.
        • Güth J.F.
        • Erdelt K.
        • Edelhoff D.
        • Beuer F.
        Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—An in vitro study.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16: 851-856
        • Mizumoto R.M.
        • Yilmaz B.
        Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 343-352
        • Müller P.
        • Ender A.
        • Joda T.
        • Katsoulis J.
        Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.
        Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-349
        • Anh J.W.
        • Park J.M.
        • Chun Y.S.
        • Kim M.
        • Kim M.
        A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: Effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction.
        Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46: 3-12
        • Richert R.
        • Goujat A.
        • Venet L.
        • Viguie G.
        • Viennot S.
        • Robinson P.
        • et al.
        Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression.
        J Healthc Eng. 2017; 2017: 8427595
        • Kim J.
        • Park J.M.
        • Kim M.
        • Heo S.J.
        • Shin I.H.
        • Kim M.
        Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 221-230
        • Lim J.H.
        • Park J.M.
        • Kim M.
        • Heo S.J.
        • Myung J.Y.
        Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
        • Kuhn K.
        • Ostertag S.
        • Ostertag M.
        • Walter M.H.
        • Luthardt R.G.
        • Rudolph H.
        Comparison of an analog and digital quantitative and qualitative analysis for the fit of dental copings.
        Comput Biol Med. 2015; 57: 32-41
        • Patzelt S.B.M.
        • Bishti S.
        • Stampf S.
        • Att W.
        Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145: 1133-1140
        • Stansbury J.W.
        • Idacavage M.J.
        3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities.
        Dent Mater. 2016; 32: 54-64
        • Alshawaf A.B.
        • Weber H.P.
        • Finkelman M.
        • El Rafie K.
        • Kudara Y.
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 835-842