Earticle

Purpose: This in vitro study aimed to compare the trueness of 3-unit fixed dental provisional prostheses (FDPs) fabricated by three different additive manufacturing and subtractive manufacturing procedures. Methods: A reference model with a maxillary left second premolar and the second molar prepped and the first molar missing was scanned for the fabrication of 3-unit FDPs. An anatomically shaped 3-unit FDP was designed on computer-aided design software. 10 FDPs were fabricated by subtractive (MI group) and additive manufacturing (stereolithography: SL group, digital light processing: DL group, liquid crystal displays: LC group) methods, respectively (N=40). All FDPs were scanned and exported to the standard triangulated language file. A three-dimensional analysis program measured the discrepancy of the internal, margin, and pontic base area. As for the comparison among manufacturing procedures, the Kruskal–Wallis test and the Mann–Whitney test with Bonferroni correction were evaluated statistically. Results: Regarding the internal area, the root mean square (RMS) value of the 3-unit FDPs was the lowest in the MI group (31.79±6.39 μm) and the highest in the SL group (69.34±29.88 μm; p=0.001). In the marginal area, those of the 3-unit FDPs were the lowest in the LC group (25.39±4.36 μm) and the highest in the SL group (48.94±18.98 μm; p=0.001). In the pontic base area, those of the 3-unit FDPs were the lowest in the LC group (8.72±2.74 μm) and the highest in the DL group (20.75±2.03 μm; p=0.001). Conclusion: A statistically significant difference was observed in the RMS mean values of all the groups. However, in comparison to the subtractive manufacturing method, all measurement areas of 3-unit FDPs fabricated by three different additive manufacturing methods are within a clinically acceptable range.

Purpose: This study aimed to confirm the applicability of gloss polishing using automatic barrel finishing with respect to three-dimensional (3D)-printed resin specimens. The surface roughness and grinding angle of the 3D-printed resin specimens were observed with respect to gloss polishing time using automatic dental barrel finishing. Methods: Herein, experiments were conducted on four types of 3D-printed resin specimens. The specimens, with a thickness of 100 μm each, were printed using a 3D printer. Subsequently, light polymerization was performed on these specimens for 15 min. Post this surface treatment, the specimens underwent grinding for 25 min. This process was followed by gloss polishing at 5-min intervals for up to 25 min using automatic dental barrel finishing. The specimens were photographed using a 3D optical microscope, and their surface roughness and grinding angle were measured. Results: The Ra (centerline average roughness) values of all the specimens, except for crown & bridge 10 group and those in the control group that were not polished using automatic barrel finishing, were <0.2 μm. However, polishing time needs to be controlled to realize the desired surface roughness and grinding amount considering the hardness of the resin used. Conclusion: Gloss polishing of 3D-printed resin can be realized using automatic dental barrel finishing. However, polishing time needs to be controlled to realize the desired surface roughness and grinding amount considering the hardness of the resin used.

Purpose: This study aimed to provide the basic data for dental barrel finishing by observing the abrasiveness of the metal body according to the time of the barrel finishing. Methods: This study included three types of Co-Cr alloys. The specimens were manufactured by casting method using 10-mm diameter wax spheres (n=10). The cast alloys were polished for 60 minutes at intervals of 5 minutes in barrel finishing. The weight and volume of the specimens were measured, and the rate of change was calculated. The data obtained from the three groups (α=0.05) were compared and analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Results: As a result, the overall volume and weight of the group decreased after grinding compared with the control group. Conclusion: When grinding dental barrel finishing, no difference was observed in the processing rate depending on the type of alloy and the processing rate of the alloy body is within 30 minutes; hence, dental barrel finishing can be effectively used for grinding.