共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Goran I. Benic Irena Sailer Marco Zeltner Janine N. Gütermann Mutlu Özcan Sven Mühlemann 《The Journal of prosthetic dentistry》2019,121(3):426-431
Statement of problem
Trials comparing the overall performances of digital and conventional workflows in restorative dentistry are lacking.Purpose
The purpose of the third part of this clinical study was to test whether the fit of zirconia 3-unit frameworks for fixed partial dentures fabricated with fully digital workflows differed from that of metal frameworks fabricated with the conventional workflow.Material and methods
In each of 10 participants, 4 fixed-partial-denture frameworks were fabricated for the same abutment teeth according to a randomly generated sequence. Digital workflows were applied for the fabrication of 3 zirconia frameworks with Lava, iTero, and Cerec infiniDent systems. The conventional workflow included a polyether impression, manual waxing, the lost-wax technique, and the casting of a metal framework. The discrepancies between the frameworks and the abutment teeth were registered using the replica technique with polyvinyl siloxane. The dimensions of the marginal discrepancy (Discrepancymarginal) and the internal discrepancy in 4 different regions of interest (Discrepancyshoulder, Discrepancyaxial, Discrepancycusp, and Discrepancyocclusal) were assessed using a light microscope. Post hoc t tests with Bonferroni correction were applied to detect differences (α=.05).Results
Discrepancyshoulder was 96.1 ±61.7 μm for the iTero, 106.9 ±96.0 μm for the Lava, 112.2 ±76.7 μm for the Cerec infiniDent, and 126.5 ±91.0 μm for the conventional workflow. The difference between the iTero and the conventional workflow was statistically significant (P=.029). Discrepancyocclusal was 153.5 ±66.8 μm for the iTero, 203.3 ±127.9 μm for the Lava, 179.7 ±63.1 μm for the Cerec infiniDent, and 148.8 ±66.8 μm for the conventional workflow. Discrepancyocclusal was significantly lower for the conventional workflow than for the Lava and the Cerec infindent workflows (P<.01). The iTero resulted in significantly lower values of Discrepancyocclusal than the Lava and the Cerec infiniDent workflows (P<.01).Conclusions
In terms of framework fit in the region of the shoulder, digitally fabricated zirconia 3-unit frameworks presented similar or better fit than the conventionally fabricated metal frameworks. In the occlusal regions, the conventionally fabricated metal frameworks achieved a more favorable fit than the CAD-CAM zirconia frameworks. 相似文献2.
Marco Zeltner Irena Sailer Sven Mühlemann Mutlu Özcan Christoph H.F. Hämmerle Goran I. Benic 《The Journal of prosthetic dentistry》2017,117(3):354-362
Statement of problem
Trials comparing the overall performance of digital with that of conventional workflows in restorative dentistry are needed.Purpose
The purpose of the third part of a series of investigations was to test whether the marginal and internal fit of monolithic crowns fabricated with fully digital workflows differed from that of crowns fabricated with the conventional workflow.Material and methods
In each of 10 participants, 5 monolithic lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated for the same abutment tooth according to a randomly generated sequence. Digital workflows were applied for the fabrication of 4 crowns using the Lava, iTero, Cerec inLab, and Cerec infinident systems. The conventional workflow included a polyvinyl siloxane impression, manual waxing, and heat-press technique. The discrepancy between the crown and the tooth was registered using the replica technique with polyvinyl siloxane material. The dimensions of the marginal discrepancy (Discrepancymarginal) and the internal discrepancy in 4 different regions of interest (Discrepancyshoulder, Discrepancyaxial, Discrepancycusp, and Discrepancyocclusal) were assessed using light microscopy. Post hoc Student t test with Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences (α=.05).Results
Discrepancymarginal was 83.6 ±51.1 μm for the Cerec infinident, 90.4 ±66.1 μm for the conventional, 94.3 ±58.3 μm for the Lava, 127.8 ±58.3 μm for the iTero, and 141.5 ±106.2 μm for the Cerec inLab workflow. The differences between the treatment modalities were not statistically significant (P>.05). Discrepancyshoulder was 82.2 ±42.4 μm for the Cerec infinident, 97.2 ±63.8 μm for the conventional, 103.4 ±52.0 μm for the Lava, 133.5 ±73.0 μm for the iTero, and 140.0 ±86.6 μm for the Cerec inLab workflow. Only the differences between the Cerec infinident and the Cerec inLab were statistically significant (P=.036). The conventionally fabricated crowns revealed significantly lower values in Discrepancycusp and Discrepancyocclusal than all the crowns fabricated with digital workflows (P<.05).Conclusions
In terms of marginal crown fit, no significant differences were found between the conventional and digital workflows for the fabrication of monolithic lithium disilicate crowns. In the occlusal regions, the conventionally manufactured crowns revealed better fit than the digitally fabricated crowns. Chairside milling resulted in less favorable crown fit than centralized milling production. 相似文献3.
4.
Sven Mühlemann Goran I. Benic Vincent Fehmer Christoph H.F. Hämmerle Irena Sailer 《The Journal of prosthetic dentistry》2019,121(2):252-257
Statement of problem
Clinical trials are needed to evaluate the digital and conventional fabrication technology for providing fixed partial dentures (FPDs).Purpose
The purpose of the second part of this clinical study was to compare the laboratory production time for tooth-supported, 3-unit FPDs by means of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems and a conventional workflow. In addition, the quality of the 3-unit framework of each treatment group was evaluated clinically.Material and methods
For each of 10 participants, a 3-unit FPD was fabricated. Zirconia was used as the framework material in the CAD-CAM systems and included Lava C.O.S. CAD software (3M) and centralized CAM (group L); CARES CAD software (Institut Straumann AG) and centralized CAM (group iT); and CEREC Connect CAD software (Dentsply Sirona) and centralized CAM (group C). The noble metal framework in the conventional workflow (group K) was fabricated by means of the traditional lost-wax technique. All frameworks were evaluated clinically before veneering. The time for the fabrication of the cast, the 3-unit framework, and the veneering process was recorded. In addition, chairside time during the clinical appointment for the evaluation of the framework was recorded. The paired Wilcoxon test together with appropriate Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences among treatment groups (α=.05).Results
The total effective working time (mean ±standard deviation) for the dental technician was 220 ±29 minutes in group L, 217 ±23 minutes in group iT, 262 ±22 minutes in group C, and 370 ±34 minutes in group K. The dental technician spent significantly more time in the conventional workflow than in the digital workflow, independent of the CAD-CAM systems used (P<.001).Conclusions
Irrespective of the CAD-CAM system, the overall laboratory time for the dental technician was significantly less for a digital workflow than for the conventional workflow. 相似文献5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.