
==== Front
Braz Oral Res
Braz Oral Res
bor
Brazilian Oral Research
1806-8324
1807-3107
Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO

39016369
01602
10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0063
Original Research/Implantodontology
Influence of fabrication method on the marginal fit of temporary restorations
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6230-4868
RODRIGUES Thaís Cristina Mendes (a)
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2677-3338
RESENDE Caio Cesar Dias (b)
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4450-2320
MOURA Guilherme Faria (c)
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5192-4690
SANTOS Fábio Henrique de Paulo Costa (d)
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2290-4046
MENDONÇA Gustavo (e)
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2205-9842
ZANCOPE Karla (d)
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8676-302X
NEVES Flávio Domingues (d)
(a) Private practice. Uberlândia, MG, Brazil.
(b) Centro Universitário do Triângulo – Unitri, Department of Implantology, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil.
(c) Medical University of South Carolina, Department of Reconstructive and Rehabilitation Science, Charleston, SC, USA.
(d) Universidade Federal de Uberlândia – UFU, School of Dentistry, Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prosthesis and Dental Materials, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil.
(e) Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Dentistry, Department of General Practice, Richmond, VA, USA.
Corresponding Author: Karla Zancopé E-mail: karlazancope@gmail.com
Declaration of Interests: The authors certify that they have no commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript.

15 7 2024
2024
38 e06314 6 2023
4 1 2024
23 2 2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract

Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technology allows the use of different manufacturing techniques. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the marginal fit of temporary restorations manufactured using conventional chairside methods, milling, and three-dimensional printing. Fifteen 3-element temporary restorations specimens were produced and categorized into three groups: non-digital, obtained using the conventional chairside method (GC); milled (GM); and three-dimensionally printed (GP). Marginal fit was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) performed under two conditions: one with only the central screw tightened, and the other with all three screws tightened. Horizontal misfit values were categorized as over-, equal-, and under-extended and qualitatively analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using the Tukey–Kramer test (α=0.05). In the vertical assessment, three-dimensionally printed restorations demonstrated greater misfit than restorations obtained by milling and the conventional chairside method (P<0.05). In the horizontal assessment, the misfit in the GP group was significantly higher than that in the GM and GC groups. Restorations obtained using the conventional chairside method and milled provisional restorations showed more favorable results than three-dimensionally printed restorations.

Tooth Crown
Printing, Three-Dimensional
Dental Marginal Adaptation
Capes001
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The rapid production of temporary restorations using milling machines or three-dimensional printers with computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) 1-3 is one of the benefits of digital technology. The importance of temporary restorations in oral rehabilitation is unquestionable considering their role in gingival conditioning and the success of the final restoration. 4 A digital workflow can also reduce the number of clinical steps and make the clinical outcomes more independent of the operator’s technical skills. 5,6 Milled prosthetic restorations have shown acceptable levels of marginal fit 7 while achieving satisfactory resistance and aesthetics, 8 and have gained greater acceptance with digital workflows in dental clinical protocols. 9

Three-dimensional printing is an additive manufacturing technique used in digital flow. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines additive manufacturing (AM) as “a process of joining materials to make objects from three-dimensional cast data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing methodologies.” 10,11 This manufacturing technique can produce less waste, ensure cost savings, reduce the need for storage of raw materials, and minimize the environmental impact of the procedure. 12-15 This approach can also reduce the time of intraoral exposure and the number of appointments to the dental office. 16-19

Passive seating and marginal fit of prosthetic structures are desirable characteristics of prosthetic restorations. 20-22 These are indispensable for balancing the mechanical and biological aspects of restorations, and help reduce the load on the prosthetic abutment, screw, and surrounding bone. 23-25 The absence of these features could cause several problems of biological origin, including bacterial infiltration, peri-implantitis, pain, and inflammation with bone loss, 26 loosening and fracture of screws, risk of fracture of the prosthetic component, and even loss of osseointegration. 26 This passivity could be measured using the Sheffield Test. 25 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is used for analyzing and measuring restoration misfit. 27

A retrospective study 27 that evaluated the success of single immediate implant rehabilitation (514 implants placed in 332 patients) showed a biomechanical complication rate of the provisional prosthesis of 9.6% (57 rehabilitations in 38 patients). Furthermore, a prospective cohort study 29 that evaluated the clinical outcomes of 215 single-immediate supported implant rehabilitations in 215 patients showed complication rates of 15% for provisional restorations, mainly due to fracture or screw loosening. These fractures indicate the necessity of unscrewing the provisional abutment, which can induce biological complications (that is periimplantar bone loss). 30 Indeed, these previous findings indicate the necessity of improving provisional rehabilitation supported by dental implants. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the marginal fit of temporary restorations manufactured using the conventional chairside method, milling, and three-dimensional printing. The null hypothesis was that provisional restorations manufactured using these three techniques would not differ.

Methods

The present study followed a 1 × 3 factorial design with marginal fit as the main study factor for the comparison of three methods of manufacturing provisional restorations: the conventional chairside method (GC), milling (GM), and three-dimensional printing (GP). The misfit of the implant structures in each cast was evaluated using SEM (SEM VEGA; Tescan, Brun, Czech Republic). The number of specimens (n = 5) was determined by power analysis based on previous studies from the research group. For this, a target power of 0.8, α = 0.05 and a minimum difference of 25 microns was adopted, resulting in an actual power of 0.89 and minimum of four samples per group. 31

A typodont (P Oclusal, São Paulo, Brazil) with 3 digital analogs of Mini Abutment GM (Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil) for a fixed implant-supported prosthesis (EFF – dental components, São Paulo, Brazil) from the first maxillary left premolar to the first maxillary left molar was used as the master cast, simulating a partially edentulous maxillary posterior region (Figure 1). The control group, conventional chairside method (GC), and five fixed implant-supported temporary restorations were fabricated from the master cast using a conventional indirect provisional technique to produce the samples. Initially, compatible provisional titanium components (Mini Abutment GM, Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil) were adapted for the cast. They were then joined with acrylic resin (Vipicor, VIPI, Pirassununga, Brazil) and dental sculptures. For the GM and GP groups, scan bodies (Healing Scan, EFF Dental, São Paulo, Brazil) were installed in the master cast, five digital scans were installed in the master cast, and five digital scans were obtained using 3Shape TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The .stl files were exported, and provisional restorations were designed (3Shape TRIOS /3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark).

Figure 1 Maxillary typodont.

Five specimens were produced in each group (Figure 2) as follows: GM group: Telio CAD LT resin (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) using a milling system (PrograMill PM7, Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein); GP group: Yller Cosmos Temp resin (Yller Biomaterials SA, Pelotas, Brazil; thickness, 50 μm) using a three-dimensional liquid crystal display (LCD) printer (Photon S; Anycubic, Shenzhen, China) following the guidelines in the printer according to the resin used; and GC group: chemical activate resin (Vipicor, VIPI, Pirassununga, Brazil), obtained by the conventional chairside method. A matrix was used to standardize all the specimens. The parameters used for printing were: thickness of each layer: 0.05 mm; exposure time: 12 min, cleaning: two baths of 5 min in isopropyl alcohol or ethanol; and post-cure time: up to 10 min in 72 watts UV chamber.

Figure 2 Specimens of all groups.

The finishing and polishing processes were not performed on the specimens. The specimens were stored in a dry environment to protect them from external light exposure. Vertical and horizontal misfit 30 (Figure 3) of the restoration interface were measured using SEM images under two conditions: one with only the central screw to stabilize the specimen and the other with all three screws tightened with 10 Ncm torque, as recommended by the manufacturer, using a prosthetic torque ranch (Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil). The mesial and distal gaps were analyzed for each temporary restoration, resulting in 15 measurements per group in each condition (one or three screws stabilizing the Sheffield Test), 25 using the SEM Vega-specific analysis software (Figure 4).

Figure 3 Schematic showing the vertical and horizontal misfit measurements.

Figure 4 SEM image of the vertical and horizontal misfit.

Statistical analyses were performed using statistical software (R version 2.10.1; The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) at a significance level of 5%. The data were checked for normality and homogeneity of variance. A logarithmic transformation was necessary for the data to satisfy the assumptions of the parametric analyses. Multiple comparisons were performed using the Tukey–Kramer test. The interfaces were evaluated in the vertical and horizontal directions with only the central screw, and all screws were tightened. In the horizontal evaluation, the measures were classified into three categories: overextension (over), underextension (under), and equal extension. 26

Results

In the evaluation using only the central screw or all screws, the GP group showed a significantly larger vertical misfit than the GM and GC groups (p < 0.0001) (Table 1). For restorations manufactured using all three techniques, the vertical misfit was significantly higher with one screw than with three screws (p = 0.0141) (Figure 5). Vertical misfit was segmented to better explain the data and interpret the differences between the production methods. All faces of both implants in the GM and GC groups showed a vertical misfit less than 75 μm in both situations. However, in the evaluation with only one central screw in the GP group, more than 60% of the implant faces presented with a misfit greater than 75 μm.

Table 1 Vertical misfit (μm) as a function of prosthesis production and evaluation.

Variable	Evaluation	
	
Central screw	Three screws	
	
Mean (SD)	Minimum/maximum value	Mean (SD)	Minimum/maximum value	
(GM)	13.22 (7.64) Ab	7.46/26.43	1.3 (0.28) Bb	0.97/1.64	
(GP)	110.41 (33.98) Aa	53.03/136.71	13.53 (14.83) Ba	3.96/39.83	
(GC)	10.23 (2.34) Ab	6.46/12.38	4.12 (1.83) Bab	1.66/6.28	
Central screw: only the central screw was tightened; three screws: all three screws were tightened. GM, milling method; GP, three-dimensional printing; GC, conventional chairside method. SD: standard deviation. Different letters (uppercase in horizontal and lowercase in vertical) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05)

Figure 5 Vertical misfit of all tested groups.

The GP group also showed greater horizontal misfit in the evaluation with only the central screw than with all three screws (p = 0.00068) (Table 2). In both situations, the horizontal misfit was significantly higher in the GP group than in the GM and GC groups (Figure 6).

Table 2 Horizontal misfit (μm) as a function of prosthesis production and evaluation.

Variable	Evaluation	
	
Central screw	Three screws	
	
Mean (SD)	Minimum/maximum value	Mean (SD)	Minimum/maximum value	
(GM)	20.66 (4.22) Ab	(13.5/23.68)	20.37 (4.05) Ab	(13.62/23.68)	
(GI)	122.81 (29.61) Aa	(71.96/147.64)	55.35(23.68) Ba	(28.36/84.59)	
(GC)	20.97 (9.89) Ab	(9.32/32.87)	15.15 (6.05) Ab	(8.18/22.38)	
Central screw: only the central screw was tightened; three screws: all three screws were tightened. GM, milling method; GP, three-dimensional printing; GC, conventional chairside method. Distinct letters (uppercase horizontally and lowercase vertically) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). p (prosthesis) < 0.0001; p (evaluation) = 0.0010; p (interaction) = 0.00068.

Figure 6 Horizontal misfit of all tested groups.

Discussion

Based on the results of this study, both the null hypotheses were rejected. Under both conditions (i.e., with only the central screw tightened and all three screws tightened), the GP group showed the highest vertical misfit. The results of this study also demonstrate that tightening all screws promotes better seating.

An important factor to emphasize in relation to the findings is that the classification of measures was performed to characterize the distribution of results and allow for a better assessment of the differences between manufacturing techniques in conditions with a single central screw or three screws. However, these gaps may enhance bacterial proliferation, which can lead to bone loss around the implant and generate malodor. 26 With only the central screw tightened, temporary restorations in all groups showed underextension. Since overextension is considered an unfavorable situation that causes difficulty in cleaning and could result in biological problems, 26 these study findings indicate that these restorations can only be used for short periods of time.

Differences may exist between the tested materials, which could be a determining factor for the obtained results. The chemical composition (Table 3) can affect the properties of provisional crowns because they contain different chemical products and polymerization methods. For example, the printed group requires a post-curing method that requires careful handling. Analyzing these results consistently is crucial with regard to the chemical components of this resin and the polymerization method.

Table 3 Materials’ composition.

Material	Composition	
Telio CAD Blocks Components (Ivoclar Vivadent)	Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), pigments. Telio stains components: bis-GMA, urethane dimethyl- acrylate and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (86 wt. %), fillers and pigments (13 wt. %), catalysts, stabilizers	
Yller Cosmos (Yller)	Oligomers, monomers, photoinitiators, stabilizers and pigment	
Vipicor (VIPI)	Polymethylmethacrylate, benzoyl peroxide, pigments. Liquid- methyl methacrylate, EDMA (crosslink), inhibitor, fluorescent	

Assessments of misfit in temporary restorations are extremely important, as misfit can cause mechanical or biological problems, compromising the longevity and success of the treatment. 26 The three-dimensionally printed restorations showed a greater discrepancy even in the horizontal evaluation. Reducing the size of the restoration may be beneficial for peri-implant health of the region, which is important for proper gingival conditioning. Restorations generated using these technologies should be used with caution and only for short periods, from 15 days to 6 months, until installation of the definitive prosthesis. Clinical adjustments must be made to guarantee minimal misfit.

Regarding the materialization of definitive crowns, in most cases, subtractive techniques that present better marginal adaptation than additive 3D printing techniques are used. 4,9 However, the use of additive techniques for the materialization of implant-supported rehabilitation has been increasing because they present less material waste, presenting itself as a more sustainable technique associated with a more accessible cost value compared to milling machines for machining. In addition, digital flow is an important tool for fabricating prostheses at high speed.

Manufacturing methods based on milling and three-dimensional printing are being studied in dentistry because of their high applicability. 7,9,10 Three-dimensionally printed restorations show more discrepancies in both vertical and horizontal evaluations. The accuracy of AM methods may be influenced by the material utilized and post-processing procedures. 9-12 The resin used for printing temporary restorations was compatible with three-dimensional LCD printers based on stereolithography (SLA) technology, and the post-polymerization process was in accordance with the resin manufacturer’s guidelines. Future studies should compare the performance of the same resin using different printers to assess the performance of the material. In addition, restorations obtained using these printers can be used for short periods without causing further clinical damage. Clinical adjustments must be made to guarantee minimal misfit.

Various approaches have been used to assess the marginal fit, including stereomicroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, optical microscopy, and microcomputed tomography (m-CT). Employing stereomicroscopic techniques requires a transverse section of both the crown and tooth to quantify misfit; however, this procedure has the potential to induce deformations. Employment of the mCT system presents a relatively costly yet non-destructive avenue for appraising marginal fit. This three-dimensional, high-resolution imaging system provides intricate cross-sectional insights into crown-to-die fit while safeguarding the integrity of the specimen. Investigations involving SEM require the specimen to be appropriately aligned to perform accurate measurements.

Changes in the parameters resulted in differences in the build and machining times, which could have contributed to changes in the post-polymerization period. 18 The increased use of three-dimensional printing (SLA) represents significant progress in digital workflow. Further studies are needed to evaluate and compare the materials used with different technologies in three-dimensional printers.

Conclusion

Restorations prepared using the conventional chairside method and milling showed more favorable results than three-dimensionally printed restorations. The methods and materials used to manufacture temporary restorations can influence their characteristics in relation to marginal fit.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Capes (Finance Code #001), CNPq, Fapemig, CPBio, EFF-Dental Components, Neodent, LAMIQ/RELAM-UFU, and the NEPRO Research Group for their contributions to this work. The authors also thank the Case Western Reserve University, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, and Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry.
==== Refs
References

1 Alghazzawi TF Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation J Prosthodont Res 2016 04 60 2 72 84 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.01.003 26935333
2 Kim CM Kim SR Kim JH Kim HY Kim WC Trueness of milled prostheses according to number of ball-end mill burs J Prosthet Dent 2016 05 115 5 624 629 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.014 26774318
3 Heintze SD Rousson V Survival of zirconia- and metal-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review Int J Prosthodont 2010 23 6 493 502 PMID:21209982 21209982
4 Santosa RE Provisional restoration options in implant dentistry Aust Dent J 2007 09 52 3 234 242 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.tb00494.x 17969293
5 Blatz MB Conejo J The current state of chairside digital dentistry and materials Dent Clin North Am 2019 04 63 2 175 197 10.1016/j.cden.2018.11.002 30825985
6 Kayatt FE Neves FD Application of CAD/CAM systems in restorative dentistry 1st Rio de Janeiro Editora Elsevier 2013 13 26
7 Kocaagaoglu H Kilinç HI Albayrak H Effect of digital impressions and production protocols on the adaptation of zirconia copings J Prosthet Dent 2017 01 117 1 102 108 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.004 27622786
8 Anunmana C Charoenchitt M Asvanund C Gap comparison between single crown and three-unit bridge zirconia substructures J Adv Prosthodont 2014 08 6 4 253 258 10.4047/jap.2014.6.4.253 25177467
9 Lee WS Lee DH Lee KB Evaluation of internal fit of interim crown fabricated with CAD/CAM milling and 3D printing system J Adv Prosthodont 2017 08 9 4 265 270 10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.265 28874993
10 Stansbury JW Idacavage MJ 3D printing with polymers: challenges among expanding options and opportunities Dent Mater 2016 01 32 1 54 64 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.018 26494268
11 Alcisto J Enriquez A Garcia H Hinkson S Steelman T Silverman E et al Tensile properties, and microstructures of laser-formed Ti-6Al-4V J Mater Eng Perform 2011 20 2 203 212 10.1007/s11665-010-9670-9
12 Dawood A Marti Marti B Sauret-Jackson V Darwood A 3D printing in dentistry Br Dent J 2015 12 219 11 521 529 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.914 26657435
13 Hada T Kanazawa M Iwaki M Arakida T Minakuchi S Effect of printing direction on stress distortion of three-dimensional printed dentures using stereolithography technology J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020 10 110 103949 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103949
14 Takeda Y Lau J Nouh H Hirayama H A 3D printing replication technique for fabricating digital dentures J Prosthet Dent 2020 09 124 3 251 256 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.026 31839328
15 Alharbi N Wismeijer D Osman RB Additive manufacturing techniques in prosthodontics: where do we currently stand? A critical review Int J Prosthodont 2017 30 5 474 484 10.11607/ijp.5079 28750105
16 Ahlholm P Lappalainen R Lappalainen J Tarvonen PL Sipilä K Challenges of the direct filling technique, Adoption of CAD/CAM techniques, and attitudes toward 3d printing for restorative treatments among finnish dentists Int J Prosthodont 2019 32 5 402 410 10.11607/ijp.6343 31486810
17 Torabi K Farjood E Hamedani S Rapid prototyping technologies and their applications in prosthodontics, a review of literature J Dent (Shiraz) 2015 03 16 1 1 9
18 Jang Y Sim JY Park JK Kim WC Kim HY Kim JH Accuracy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated on 3D-printed casts J Prosthet Dent 2020 01 123 1 135 142 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.004 31027960
19 Barazanchi A Li KC Al-Amleh B Lyons K Waddell JN Additive technology: update on current materials and applications in dentistry J Prosthodont 2017 02 26 2 156 163 10.1111/jopr.12510 27662423
20 Anadioti E Aquilino SA Gratton DG Holloway JA Denry I Thomas GW et al 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions J Prosthodont 2014 12 23 8 610 617 10.1111/jopr.12180 24995593
21 de França DG Morais MH das Neves FD Barbosa GA Influence of CAD/CAM on the fit accuracy of implant-supported zirconia and cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses J Prosthet Dent 2015 01 113 1 22 28 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.07.010 25277028
22 Fernández M Delgado L Molmeneu M García D Rodríguez D Analysis of the misfit of dental implant-supported prostheses made with three manufacturing processes J Prosthet Dent 2014 02 111 2 116 123 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.006 24176182
23 Abduo J Fit of CAD/CAM implant frameworks: a comprehensive review J Oral Implantol 2014 12 40 6 758 766 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00117 25506666
24 Torres EM Barbosa GA Bernardes SR Mattos MG Ribeiro RF Correlation between vertical misfits and stresses transmitted to implants from metal frameworks J Biomech 2011 Jun 44 9 1735 1739 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.03.032 21497352
25 Sartori IA Ribeiro RF Francischone CE de Mattos MG In vitro comparative analysis of the fit of gold alloy or commercially pure titanium implant-supported prostheses before and after electroerosion J Prosthet Dent 2004 08 92 2 132 138 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.001 15295321
26 Jain S Sayed ME Shetty M Alqahtani SM Al Wadei MH Gupta SG et al Physical and mechanical properties of 3D-printed provisional crowns and fixed dental prosthesis resins compared to CAD/CAM milled and conventional provisional resins: a systematic review and meta-analysis Polymers (Basel) 2022 06 14 13 2691 10.3390/polym14132691
27 Trifkovic B Budak I Todorovic A Hodolic J Puskar T Jevremovic D et al Application of replica technique and SEM in accuracy measurement of ceramic crowns Meas Sci Rev 2012 12 3 90 97 10.2478/v10048-012-0016-7
28 Maló P de Araújo Nobre M Lopes A Ferro A Gravito I Single-tooth rehabilitations supported by dental implants used in an immediate-provisionalization protocol: report on long-term outcome with retrospective follow-up Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015 10 17 S2 Suppl 2 e511 e519 10.1111/cid.12278 25536361
29 Clauser C Sforza NM Menini I Kalemaj Z Buti J Immediate postextraction single-tooth implants and provisional crowns in the esthetic area: 2-year results of a cohort prospective multicenter study- patient-centered outcomes Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020 35 4 833 840 10.11607/jomi.7203 32724938
30 Bressan E Grusovin MG D'Avenia F Neumann K Sbricoli L Luongo G et al The influence of repeated abutment changes on peri-implant tissue stability: 3-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial Eur J Oral Implantology 2017 10 4 373 390 29234745
31 Resende CC Barbosa TA Moura GF Tavares LD Rizzante FA George FM et al Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans J Prosthet Dent 2021 02 125 2 294 299 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.011 32115221
32 Neves FD Elias GA Silva-Neto JP Dantas LCM Mota AS Fernandes AJ Neto Comparison of implant-abutment interface misfits after casting and soldering procedures J Oral Implantol 2014 04 40 2 129 135 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00070 22242693
