Trueness, precision, time-efficiency and cost analysis of chairside additive and subtractive versus lab-based workflows for manufacturing single crowns: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the trueness, precision, time efficiency, and cost of three different workflows for manufacturing single crowns (SCs).

METHODS

A plaster model with a prepared tooth (#15) was scanned with an industrial scanner, and an SC was designed in computer-assisted-design (CAD) software. Ten SCs were printed with a hybrid composite (additive chairside) and a stereolithographic (SLA) printer (Dfab®), 10 SCs were milled in lithium disilicate (subtractive chairside) using a chairside milling unit (inLab MC XL®), and 10 SCs were milled in zirconia (lab-based) using a five-axis laboratory machine (DWX-52D®). All SCs were scanned with the same scanner after polymerization/sinterization. Each scan was superimposed to the marginal area of the original CAD file to evaluate trueness: absolute average (ABS AVG), root mean square (RMS), and (90˚-10˚)/2 percentile were calculated for each group. Marginal adaptation and quality of the occlusal and interproximal contact points were also investigated by two prosthodontists on 3D printed and plaster models. Finally, the three workflows' time efficiency and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Additive chairside and subtractive lab-based SCs had significantly better marginal trueness than subtractive chairside SCs in all three parameters (ABS AVG, p < 0.01; RMS, p < 0.01; [90˚-10˚]/2, p < 0.01). However, the two prosthodontists found no significant differences between the three manufacturing procedures in the quality of the marginal closure (p = 0.186), interproximal (p = 0.319), and occlusal contacts (p = 0.218). Both time efficiency and cost show a trend favoring the chairside additive workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

Chairside additive technology seems to represent a valid alternative for manufacturing definitive SCs, given the high marginal trueness, precision, workflow efficiency and low costs.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Additive chairside manufacturing of definitive hybrid composite SCs is now possible and shows high accuracy, time efficiency, and competitive cost.

Accuracy of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technique

PURPOSE

To compare and analyze trueness and precision of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Digital impressions were made using a master model and an intraoral scanner and the crowns were designed with CAD software; in total, 22 crowns were produced. After superimposing CAD design data and scan data using a 3D program, quantitative and qualitative data were obtained for analysis of trueness and precision. Statistical analysis was performed using normality test combined with Levene test for equal variance analysis and independent sample t-test. Type 1 error was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Trueness for the outer and inner surfaces of the SLA crown (SLAC) were 49.6±9.3 µm and 22.5±5.1 µm, respectively, and those of the subtractive crown (SUBC) were 31.8±7.5 µm and 14.6±1.2 µm, respectively. Precision values for the outer and inner surfaces of the SLAC were 18.7±6.2 µm and 26.9±8.5 µm, and those of the SUBC were 25.4±3.1 µm and 13.8±0.6 µm, respectively. Trueness values for the outer and inner surfaces of the SLAC and SUBC showed statistically significant differences (P<.001). Precision for the inner surface showed significance (P<.03), whereas that for the outer surface showed no significance (P<.58).

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that provisional crowns produced by subtractive technology are superior to crowns fabricated by stereolithography in terms of accuracy.