Accuracy, adaptation and margin quality of monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated by 3D printing versus subtractive manufacturing technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy (trueness and precision), marginal and internal adaptation, and margin quality of zirconia crowns made by additive manufacturing compared to subtractive manufacturing technology.

METHODS

The investigation adhered to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for systematic reviews and was registered at the Prospero database (n°CRD42023452927). Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science and manual search was conducted to find relevant studies published until September 2023. In vitro studies that assessed the trueness and precision, marginal and internal adaptation, and margin quality of printed crowns compared to milled ones were included. Studies on crowns over implants, pontics, temporary restorations, laminates, or exclusively experimental materials were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies were included in the descriptive reporting and 7 for meta-analysis. The global meta-analysis of the trueness (P<0.74,I2=90%) and the margin quality (P<0.61,I2=0%) indicated no significant difference between the root mean square of printed and milled zirconia crowns. The subgroup analysis for the printing system showed a significant effect (P<0.01). The meta-analysis of the crown areas indicated no significant difference in most of the areas, except for the marginal (favoring milled crowns) and axial (favoring printed crowns) areas. For precision and adaptation, both methods showed a clinically acceptable level.

CONCLUSIONS

Additive manufacturing technology produces crowns with trueness and margin quality comparable to subtractive manufacturing. Both techniques have demonstrated the ability to produce crowns with precision levels, internal discrepancy, and marginal fit within clinically acceptable limits.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

s3D printing emerges as a promising and potentially applicable alternative method for manufacturing zirconia crowns, as it shows trueness and margin quality comparable to restorations produced by the subtractive method.

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to a new version of zirconium all ceramic restoration: An in vitro comparative study

Objectives

Esthetic restorations such as monolithic zirconia crowns are highly requested for adults nowadays. Bonding orthodontic braces on this type of material became a challenge for orthodontists, because of the special surface treatment needed. This study aims to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal, and ceramic brackets bonded on two types of zirconia ceramics, surface roughness (SR) after different surface treatments for their surfaces, and adhesive remnant index (ARI).

Materials and methods

Brackets' base surface area (BSA) was scanned by an extra-oral scanner, then measured. The doubled labial surface of monolithic zirconia crowns (n = 30) and monolithic high translucent zirconia crowns (n = 30) were prepared and each was divided into three groups (n = 10) depending on surface treatment (hydrofluoric acid etching, no treatment, and rocatec airborne abrasion). Extracted lower central incisors (n = 20) were prepared. Each of them was divided into two subgroups depending on the type of bracket bonded on their surfaces (metal and ceramic). The SR, SBS, and ARI were assessed.

Statistical analysis used

Tests used are independent-samples t-test, Fisher's exact test, One-Way ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

The highest SBS and SR were observed in Enamel/Metal and Zirconia/Metal/Rocatec subgroups, respectively.

Conclusion

Adequate bond strength could be obtained with the high translucent zirconia group if bonded with ceramic or metal brackets even if no treatment was used.

Clinical significance

A proportion of simulation was done like practicing inside the dental clinic to reach the best results regarding the adhesion strength of orthodontic brackets.

Trueness and precision of 3D-printed versus milled monolithic zirconia crowns: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To compare the trueness and precision of 3D-printed versus milled monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs).

METHODS

A model of a maxilla with a prepared premolar was scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOSQ®, Gom) and an MZC was designed in computer-assisted-design (CAD) software (DentalCad®, Exocad). From that standard tessellation language (STL) file, 10 MZCs (test) were 3D-printed with a Lithography-based Ceramic Manufacturing (LCM) printer (CerafabS65®, Lithoz) and 10 MZCs (control) were milled using a 5-axis machine (DWX-52D®, DGShape). All MZCs were sintered and scanned with the aforementioned scanner. The surface data of each sample (overall crown, marginal area, occlusal surface) were superimposed to the original CAD file (ControlX®, Geomagic) to evaluate trueness: (90-10)/2, absolute average (ABS AVG) and root mean square (RMS) values were obtained for test and control groups (MathLab®, Mathworks) and used for analysis. Finally, the clinical precision (marginal adaptation, interproximal contacts) of test and control MZCs was investigated on a split-cast model printed (Solflex350®, Voco) from the CAD project, and compared.

RESULTS

The milled MZCs had a significantly higher trueness than the 3D-printed ones, overall [(90-10)/2 printed 37.8 µm vs milled 21.2 µm; ABS AVG printed 27.2 µm vs milled 15.1 µm; RMS printed 33.2 µm vs milled 20.5 µm; p = 0.000005], at the margins [(90-10)/2 printed 25.6 µm vs milled 12.4 µm; ABS AVG printed 17.8 µm vs milled 9.4 µm; RMS printed 22.8 µm vs milled 15.6 µm; p= 0.000011] and at the occlusal level [(90-10)/2 printed 50.4 µm vs milled 21.9 µm; ABS AVG printed 29.6 µm vs milled 14.7 µm; RMS printed 38.9 µm vs milled 22.5 µm; p = 0.000005]. However, with regard to precision, both test and control groups scored highly, with no significant difference either in the quality of interproximal contact points (p = 0.355) or marginal closure (p = 0.355).

CONCLUSIONS

Milled MZCs had a statistically higher trueness than 3D-printed ones; all crowns, however, showed high precision, compatible with the clinical use.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Although milled MZCs remain more accurate than 3D-printed ones, the LCM technique seems able to guarantee the production of clinically precise zirconia crowns.

Artificial intelligence in fixed implant prosthodontics: a retrospective study of 106 implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns inserted in the posterior jaws of 90 patients

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science concerned with building smart software or machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. We present a protocol for the use of AI to fabricate implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs) cemented on customized hybrid abutments.

Methods

The study protocol consisted of: (1) intraoral scan of the implant position; (2) design of the individual abutment and temporary crown using computer-aided design (CAD) software; (3) milling of the zirconia abutment and the temporary polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) crown, with extraoral cementation of the zirconia abutment on the relative titanium bonding base, to generate an individual hybrid abutment; (4) clinical application of the hybrid abutment and the temporary PMMA crown; (5) intraoral scan of the hybrid abutment; (6) CAD of the final crown with automated margin line design using AI; (7) milling, sintering and characterisation of the final MZC; and (8) clinical application of the MZC. The outcome variables were mathematical (quality of the fabrication of the individual zirconia abutment) and clinical, such as (1) quality of the marginal adaptation, (2) of interproximal contact points and (3) of occlusal contacts, (4) chromatic integration, (5) survival and (6) success of MZCs. A careful statistical analysis was performed.

Results

90 patients (35 males, 55 females; mean age 53.3 ± 13.7 years) restored with 106 implant-supported MZCs were included in the study. The follow-up varied from 6 months to 3 years. The quality of the fabrication of individual hybrid abutments revealed a mean deviation of 44 μm (± 6.3) between the original CAD design of the zirconia abutment, and the mesh of the zirconia abutment captured intraorally at the end of the provisionalization. At the delivery of the MZCs, the marginal adaptation, quality of interproximal and occlusal contacts, and aesthetic integration were excellent. The three-year cumulative survival and success of the MZCs were 99.0% and 91.3%, respectively.

Conclusions

AI seems to represent a reliable tool for the restoration of single implants with MZCs cemented on customised hybrid abutments via a full digital workflow. Further studies are needed to confirm these positive results.

Critical considerations on load-to-failure test for monolithic zirconia molar crowns

Application of monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs) with reduced thickness to the molar region has been proposed, but potential complications have yet to be fully evaluated in laboratory tests. The present study aimed to develop a clinically relevant load-to-failure test in combination with fatigue treatments involving thermal and mechanical cycling (TC and MC) to evaluate the fracture resistance of molar MZCs. MZCs with a minimal thickness of 0.5 mm were bonded to dies made of resin-based composite (RBC), epoxy resin (EP), or polyoxymethylene-copolymer (POM-C). The samples were either untreated (UT) or subjected to TC (5-55 °C for 1 × 10⁵ cycles) and MC (300 N for 2.4 × 10⁶ cycles). The stress generated by TC and MC was simulated by finite element modeling. The load-to-failure test was performed using an inverse V-shaped two-plane indenter and was followed by fractographic analysis. The median values of fracture load for MZC/RBC and MZC/EP in the TC group were significantly lower than those in the UT group. MC also decreased the median value of fracture load for MZC/RBC significantly, but not that for MZC/EP and MZC/POM-C. Fractography revealed that the fracture started in the cervical area in all groups, which is similar to clinically failed crowns. The simulation confirmed stress concentration at the cervical area in both TC and MC groups. The present study suggests that the load-to-failure test using a two-plane indenter could induce clinically relevant fracture of MZCs, the vulnerability of the MZCs depends largely on the die material employed, and MZCs are more likely to be damaged by thermal fatigue than mechanical fatigue.

Effect of cements on fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns

Objectives The present study investigated the effect of cements on fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns in relation to their compressive strength.

Materials and methods Four different cements were tested: zinc phosphate cement (ZPC), glass-ionomer cement (GIC), self-adhesive resin-based cement (SRC) and resin-based cement (RC). RC was used in both dual cure mode (RC-D) and chemical cure mode (RC-C). First, the compressive strength of each cement was tested according to a standard (ISO 9917-1:2004). Second, load-to-failure test was performed to analyze the crown fracture resistance. CAD/CAM-produced monolithic zirconia crowns with a minimal thickness of 0.5 mm were prepared and cemented to dies with each cement. The crown–die samples were loaded until fracture.

Results The compressive strength of SRC, RC-D and RC-C was significantly higher than those of ZPC and GIC (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the fracture load of the crown between the groups.

Conclusion The values achieved in the load-to-failure test suggest that monolithic zirconia crowns with a minimal thickness of 0.5 mm may have good resistance against fracture regardless of types of cements.