Link to the University of Pittsburgh Homepage
Link to the University Library System Homepage Link to the Contact Us Form
D-Scholarship @ Pitt Banner and Links to Homepage

A Comparison of Marginal Fit between Milled CAD/CAM Ceramic Crowns and Hybrid Resin 3-D Printed Definitive Crowns

Faddoul, Alexandre J (2024) A Comparison of Marginal Fit between Milled CAD/CAM Ceramic Crowns and Hybrid Resin 3-D Printed Definitive Crowns. Master's Thesis, University of Pittsburgh. (Unpublished)

This is the latest version of this item.

[img]
Preview
 PDF
Download (634kB) | Preview

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To compare the marginal fit and accuracy of definitive crowns printed with (1) Sprintray Ceramic Crown using Sprintray’s DLP Pro55s printer to that of (2) milled and sintered IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) lithium disilicate crowns milled via 3-axis milling machine.

Materials and Methods: A prefabricated abutment tooth #8 was scanned via the CEREC Omnicam and the Trios 4 (3 Shape) in order to mill 15 samples of IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) and print 15 samples of SprintRay Ceramic Crown, respectively. Intaglio surface scans of the samples were made with the Trios 4 and these scans, along with the scan of the master abutment, were exported to Geomagic Control X software. The master abutment scan was aligned with each intaglio scan for each material and a 3-D compare was completed in order to evaluate 1) the average marginal gap between the scans for the entire margin area and 2) the marginal gap at 4 selected points (B, L, D, M) along the margin. Two-sample t-tests were used to analyze the data.

Results: Results from a two sample T-test showed statistically significant differences between the total marginal gaps for E.max and Sprint Ray, with the materials having gaps of 69.87 μms and 137.5867 μms, respectively (p < 0.05). With respect to the four points used in this study (B, L, M, D), the marginal gap was further evaluated by comparing the point average between respective samples. Two sample T-tests revealed that e.max had a significantly lower (p < 0.05) point average marginal gap of 32.4467 μms compared to Sprint Ray at 87.79 μms.

Conclusion: SprintRay Ceramic Crown hybrid resin did not produce marginal gap within clinically acceptable range and was outperformed by the marginal gap obtained by milling. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that subtractive manufacturing performs better than additive manufacturing with respect to marginal integrity of a single full coverage restoration.

Share

Citation/Export:
Social Networking:
Share |

Details

Item Type: University of Pittsburgh ETD
Status: Unpublished
Creators/Authors:
CreatorsEmailPitt UsernameORCID
Faddoul, Alexandre Jajf144@pitt.eduajf1440009-0007-4633-0231
ETD Committee:
TitleMemberEmail AddressPitt UsernameORCID
Committee ChairAntonopoulou, Stravroulasta44@pitt.edusta44
Committee MemberBaker, Natashanab74@pitt.edunab74
Committee MemberKarayazgan, Banubak139@pitt.edubak139
Committee MemberShah, Nileshnhs3@pitt.edunhs3
Date: 16 December 2024
Date Type: Publication
Defense Date: 22 November 2024
Approval Date: 16 December 2024
Submission Date: 24 November 2024
Access Restriction: No restriction; Release the ETD for access worldwide immediately.
Number of Pages: 29
Institution: University of Pittsburgh
Schools and Programs: School of Dental Medicine > Dental Science
Degree: MDS - Master of Dental Science
Thesis Type: Master's Thesis
Refereed: Yes
Uncontrolled Keywords: ceramic, resin, hybrid, e.max, glass, crystal, margin, fit, gap
Date Deposited: 16 Dec 2024 17:18
Last Modified: 16 Dec 2024 17:18
URI: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/id/eprint/47144

Available Versions of this Item

Metrics

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item