Scholarlink

Aims <p>This in-vitro study evaluated the influence of total occlusal convergence (TOC) (10°/20°) and auxiliary retentive features (ARF) (groove, proximal box) on regional marginal discrepancy in milled (CopraTemp PMMA) and 3D-printed (Asiga Dentatooth) short (3&#xa0;mm) provisional crowns (PC). </p> Methods <p>Eighty PCs were fabricated on standardized mandibular first molar preparations with 3&#xa0;mm axial height. Preparations varied by TOC (10°/20°) and ARF [none, mid-buccal groove (1.5 × 1.0&#xa0;mm), or proximal box (2.0 × 2.0 × 1.5&#xa0;mm)]. Crowns were seated under standardized pre-cementation conditions (50 N, 10&#xa0;s), and vertical marginal discrepancy was measured at 24 indexed points per crown using 2D stereomicroscopy (40 ×). Descriptive statistics were presented as medians and interquartile ranges, and ART ANOVA was used to evaluate fabrication workflow, preparation design, and their interaction.</p> Results <p>The marginal discrepancy was surface-dependent, with greater values generally observed at mesial and distal surfaces than at buccal and lingual surfaces. ART ANOVA identified significant workflow effects at the buccal&#xa0;<InlineEquation ID="IEq1"><EquationSource Format="TEX">\((F=6.851,p=0.011)\)</EquationSource></InlineEquation>&#xa0;and distal&#xa0;<InlineEquation ID="IEq2"><EquationSource Format="TEX">\((F=5.008,p=0.028)\)</EquationSource></InlineEquation>&#xa0;surfaces, while preparation design and workflow-by-preparation interaction were not significant. The 3D-printed 20° groove subgroup (P2G) showed the lowest overall median discrepancy (91&#xa0;μm), with surface medians of 86&#xa0;μm, 83&#xa0;μm, 91&#xa0;μm, and 111&#xa0;μm at the buccal, mesial, lingual, and distal surfaces, respectively.</p> Conclusion <p>Within the limitations of this pre-cementation in-vitro model, surface-specific vertical marginal discrepancy varied between the tested milled and 3D-printed workflows. Several 3D-printed configurations, particularly the 20° groove subgroup, showed a more favorable descriptive pattern; however, these findings should be interpreted as workflow- and geometry-dependent rather than final cemented clinical behavior or a broader superior implication.</p> Implications <p>Under controlled pre-cementation laboratory conditions, the 20° groove printed subgroup showed the most favorable descriptive adaptation pattern; however, these findings do not establish clinical superiority and require validation after cementation, aging, and loading.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Influence of total occlusal convergence and auxiliary retentive features on regional marginal discrepancy in milled and 3D-printed short provisional crowns—an in-vitro study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月4日

查看全文
  • Ebrahim Fihaid Alsubaiy,
  • Kulashekar Reddy Nandalur,
  • Naveen Reddy Ramireddy,
  • Mohammed E. Sayed,
  • Amit Porwal,
  • Khurshid Mattoo,
  • Hussain D. Alsayed,
  • Ahid Amer Alshahrani,
  • Hanan Yousif Aldryhim,
  • Firas K. Alqarawi

摘要

Aims

This in-vitro study evaluated the influence of total occlusal convergence (TOC) (10°/20°) and auxiliary retentive features (ARF) (groove, proximal box) on regional marginal discrepancy in milled (CopraTemp PMMA) and 3D-printed (Asiga Dentatooth) short (3 mm) provisional crowns (PC).

Methods

Eighty PCs were fabricated on standardized mandibular first molar preparations with 3 mm axial height. Preparations varied by TOC (10°/20°) and ARF [none, mid-buccal groove (1.5 × 1.0 mm), or proximal box (2.0 × 2.0 × 1.5 mm)]. Crowns were seated under standardized pre-cementation conditions (50 N, 10 s), and vertical marginal discrepancy was measured at 24 indexed points per crown using 2D stereomicroscopy (40 ×). Descriptive statistics were presented as medians and interquartile ranges, and ART ANOVA was used to evaluate fabrication workflow, preparation design, and their interaction.

Results

The marginal discrepancy was surface-dependent, with greater values generally observed at mesial and distal surfaces than at buccal and lingual surfaces. ART ANOVA identified significant workflow effects at the buccal \((F=6.851,p=0.011)\) and distal \((F=5.008,p=0.028)\) surfaces, while preparation design and workflow-by-preparation interaction were not significant. The 3D-printed 20° groove subgroup (P2G) showed the lowest overall median discrepancy (91 μm), with surface medians of 86 μm, 83 μm, 91 μm, and 111 μm at the buccal, mesial, lingual, and distal surfaces, respectively.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this pre-cementation in-vitro model, surface-specific vertical marginal discrepancy varied between the tested milled and 3D-printed workflows. Several 3D-printed configurations, particularly the 20° groove subgroup, showed a more favorable descriptive pattern; however, these findings should be interpreted as workflow- and geometry-dependent rather than final cemented clinical behavior or a broader superior implication.

Implications

Under controlled pre-cementation laboratory conditions, the 20° groove printed subgroup showed the most favorable descriptive adaptation pattern; however, these findings do not establish clinical superiority and require validation after cementation, aging, and loading.