Fabrication Trueness, Intaglio Surface Adaptation, and Marginal Integrity of Resin-Based Onlay Restorations Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Manufacturing
Gülce Çakmak, David Steigmeier, Mehmet Esad Güven, Deniz Yılmaz, Martin Schimmel, Hyung‐In Yoon, Burak Yılmaz
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the fabrication trueness, intaglio surface adaptation, and marginal integrity of resin-based onlay restorations made via additive manufacturing (AM) or subtractive manufacturing (SM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An onlay restoration was designed (DentalCAD Galway 3.0) and saved as an STL file to generate a design STL file (DO-STL). Using this design, 45 onlays were fabricated either with AM (3D-printed resin for definitive [AM-D; Tera Harz TC-80DP] and interim [AM-I; Freeprint temp] restorations) or SM (composite resin, Tetric CAD) technologies. Onlays were scanned with an intraoral scanner (CEREC Primescan SW 5.2), and the scans were saved as test STL files (TO-STLs). For trueness evaluation, TO-STLs were superimposed over the DO-STL, and root mean square (RMS) values of overall and intaglio surfaces were measured (Geomagic Control X). For the intaglio surface adaptation and marginal integrity, a triple-scan protocol was performed. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, one-way ANOVA, and post-hoc Tukey honestly significant difference tests were used to analyze data (α = .05). RESULTS: RMS values of intaglio and overall surfaces, intaglio adaptation, and marginal integrity varied among test groups (P < .001). AM-D had the greatest overall surface RMS (P < .001), while SM had the greatest intaglio surface RMS (P < .001). SM had the highest average distance deviations for intaglio surface adaptation and marginal integrity, whereas AM-D had the lowest (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: AM-D onlays showed lower overall trueness than AM-I onlays and SM definitive onlays. However, AM-D onlays presented high intaglio surface trueness, intaglio surface adaptation, and marginal integrity.