Research and Education|Articles in Press

Marginal and internal discrepancies associated with carbon digital light synthesis additively manufactured interim crowns


      Statement of problem

      The carbon digital light synthesis (DLS) or continuous liquid interface production (CLIP) technology is an innovative additive manufacturing technology using oxygen-inhibited photopolymerization to create a continuous liquid interface of unpolymerized resin between the growing component and the exposure window. This interface eliminates the need for an incremental layer-by-layer approach, allowing for continuous creation and increased printing speed. However, the internal and marginal discrepancies associated with this new technology remain unclear.


      The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal and internal discrepancies by using the silicone replica technique of interim crowns fabricated by 3 different manufacturing technologies: direct light processing (DLP), DLS, and milling.

      Material and methods

      A mandibular first molar was prepared, and a crown was designed with a computer-aided design (CAD) software program. The standard tessellation language (STL) file was used to create 30 crowns from the DLP, DLS, milling technologies (n=10). The gap discrepancy was determined using the silicone replica approach, with 50 measurements made with a ×70 microscope for each specimen for the marginal and internal gaps. The data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey HSD post hoc test (α=.05).


      The DLS group had the least marginal discrepancy compared with the DLP and milling groups (P<.001). The DLP group showed the highest internal discrepancy followed by the DLS and milling groups (P=.038). No significant difference was found between DLS and milling in terms of internal discrepancy (P>.05).


      The manufacturing technique had a significant effect on both internal and marginal discrepancies. The DLS technology showed the smallest marginal discrepancies.
      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 to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Mainjot A.K.
        • Dupont N.M.
        • Oudkerk J.C.
        • Dewael T.Y.
        • Sadoun M.J.
        From artisanal to CAD-CAM blocks: state of the art of indirect composites.
        J Dent Res. 2016; 95: 487-495
        • van Noort R.
        The future of dental devices is digital.
        Dent Mater. 2012; 28: 3-12
        • Kessler A.
        • Hickel R.
        • Reymus M.
        3D printing in dentistry state of the art.
        Oper Dent. 2020; 45: 30-40
        • Abdullah A.O.
        • Tsitrou E.A.
        • Pollington S.
        Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns.
        J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24: 258-263
        • 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
        • Peng C.C.
        • Chung K.H.
        • Yau H.T.
        Assessment of the internal fit and marginal integrity of interim crowns made by different manufacturing methods.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 514-522
        • Tahayeri A.
        • Morgan M.
        • Fugolin A.P.
        • et al.
        3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials.
        Dent Mater. 2018; 34: 192-200
        • Khanlar L.N.
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Barmak A.B.
        • et al.
        Surface roughness and shear bond strength to composite resin of additively manufactured interim restorative material with different printing orientations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2023; 129: 788-795
      1. ISO 17296–2. Additive manufacturing general principles part 2: Overview of process categories and feedstock.
        (Available at:)
        Date: 2015
        Date accessed: January 15, 2015
        • ASTM
        Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies.
        Standard terminology for additive manufacturing general principles and terminology, West Conshohocken, Pa2009 (ISO/ASTM52900-15)
        • Groth C.
        • Kravitz N.D.
        • Jones P.E.
        • Graham J.W.
        • Redmond W.R.
        Three-dimensional printing technology.
        J Clin Orthod. 2014; 48: 475-485
        • Neckers D.C.
        Stereolithography-an introduction.
        Chemtech. 1990; 20: 615-619
        • Hull C.W.
        Apparatus for Production of Three-Dimensional Objects by Stereo-Lithography.
        1986 (US Patent 4575330)
        • Hornbeck L.
        Digital Micromirror Device.
        2009 (US Patent No. 5061.049)
        • Unkovskiy A.
        • Schmidt F.
        • Beuer F.
        • Li P.
        • Spintzyk S.
        • Kraemer Fernandez P.
        Stereolithography vs direct light processing for rapid manufacturing of complete denture bases: an in vitro accuracy analysis.
        J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 1070
        • Thakare A.
        • Ramesh S.
        • Patil V.
        • Meenakshi S.
        • Ramu R.
        • Byakodi R.
        Comparative evaluation of internal and marginal fit of interim crowns fabricated by CAD/CAM milling and two different 3D printing systems-An in vitro study.
        Mater Today: Proc. 2022; 57: A1-A9
        • Desimone J.M.
        • Ermoshkin A.
        • Ermoshkin N.
        • Samulski E.T.
        Continuous Liquid Interphase Printing.
        2014 (Patent WO 2014/126837A2. PCT/US2014/015506)
        • Janusziewicz R.
        • Tumbleston J.R.
        • Quintanilla A.L.
        • Mecham S.J.
        • DeSimone J.M.
        Layerless fabrication with continuous liquid interface production.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016; 113: 11703-11708
        • Tumbleston J.R.
        • Shirvanyants D.
        • Ermoshkin N.
        • et al.
        Continuous liquid interface production of 3D objects.
        Science. 2015; 347: 1349-1352
        • Rungrojwittayakul O.
        • Kan J.Y.
        • Shiozaki K.
        • 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
        • Lai Y.C.
        • Yang C.C.
        • Levon J.A.
        • Chu T.M.
        • Morton D.
        • Lin W.S.
        The effects of additive manufacturing technologies and finish line designs on the trueness and dimensional stability of 3D-printed dies.
        J Prosthodont. 13 August 2022; ([Epub ahead of print.])
        • Orgev A.
        • Levon J.A.
        • Chu T.M.
        • Morton D.
        • Lin W.S.
        The effects of manufacturing technologies on the surface accuracy of CAD-CAM occlusal splints.
        J Prosthodont. 13 October 2022; ([Epub ahead of print.])
      2. “3D Printer Models,” Carbon.
        (Available at:)
        Date accessed: October 7, 2021
        • Jacobs M.S.
        • Windeler A.S.
        An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65: 436-442
        • Maglad A.S.
        • Wassell R.W.
        • Barclay S.C.
        • Walls A.W.G.
        Risk management in clinical practice. Part 3. Crowns and bridges.
        Br Dent J. 2010; 209: 115-122
        • Felton D.A.
        • Kanoy B.E.
        • Bayne S.C.
        • Wirthman G.P.
        Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65: 357-364
        • Gratton D.G.
        • Aquilino S.A.
        Interim restorations.
        Dent Clin North Am. 2004; 48: 487-497
        • McLean J.W.
        • von Fraunhofer J.A.
        The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique.
        Br Dent J. 1971; 131: 107-111
        • Boening K.W.
        • Wolf B.H.
        • Schmidt A.E.
        • Kästner K.
        • Walter M.H.
        Clinical fit of Procera all Ceram crowns.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84: 419-424
        • Boitelle P.
        • Mawussi B.
        • Tapie L.
        • Fromentin O.
        A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2014; 41: 853-874
        • Wu J.
        • Xie H.
        • Sadr A.
        • Chung K.H.
        Evaluation of internal fit and marginal adaptation of provisional crowns fabricated with three different techniques.
        Sensors (Basel). 2021; 21: 740
        • Park J.Y.
        • Jeong I.D.
        • Lee J.J.
        • Bae S.Y.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Kim W.C.
        In vitro assessment of the marginal and internal fits of interim implant restorations fabricated with different methods.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 536-542
        • Alharbi N.
        • Alharbi S.
        • Cuijpers V.M.J.I.
        • Osman R.B.
        • Wismeijer D.
        Three-dimensional evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed interim restorations fabricated on different finish line designs.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 218-226
        • Karasan D.
        • Legaz J.
        • Boitelle P.
        • Mojon P.
        • Fehmer V.
        • Sailer I.
        Accuracy of additively manufactured and milled interim 3-unit fixed dental prostheses.
        J Prosthodont. 2022; 31: 58-69
        • Puebla K.
        • Arcaute K.
        • Quintana R.
        • Wicker R.B.
        Effects of environmental conditions, aging, and build orientations on the mechanical properties of ASTM type I specimens manufactured via stereolithography.
        Rapid Prototyp J. 2012; 18: 374-388
        • Plooji J.M.
        • Maal T.J.
        • Haers P.
        • Borstlap W.A.
        • Kuijpers-Jagtman A.M.
        • Berge S.J.
        Digital three-dimensional image fusion processes for planning and evaluating orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. A systematic review.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40: 341-352
        • Ide Y.
        • Nayar S.
        • Logan H.
        • Gallagher B.
        • Wolfaardt J.
        The effect of the angle of acuteness of additive manufactured models and the direction of printing on the dimensional fidelity: clinical implications.
        Odontology. 2017; 105: 108-115
        • Brain M.
        • Jimbo R.
        • Wennenberg A.
        Production tolerance of additive manufactured polymeric objects for clinical applications.
        Dent Mater. 2016; 32: 853-861
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Özcan M.
        Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry.
        J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 146-158
        • Liravi F.
        • Das S.
        • Zhou C.
        Separation force analysis and prediction based on cohesive element model for constrained-surface Stereolithography processes.
        Comput Aided Des. 2015; 69: 134-142