The aim of this study is to evaluate the maximum and minimum distances between the model and the cast crown of three techniques using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Three technique groups were used for this study...The aim of this study is to evaluate the maximum and minimum distances between the model and the cast crown of three techniques using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Three technique groups were used for this study: group A (control), traditional manual wax patterns;group B, dipping wax patterns;group C, resin patterns made with CAD/CAM. For each group, 10 samples were made using the same model, and then metal cast. Marginal accuracies of the samples were evaluated by performing gap measurements using SEM with a magnification of 1200× (minimum distance). The data were statistically analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the 0.05 significance level. The average (standard deviation) of the minimum distance [μm] was 22.5 (12.1), 9.9 (4.3), and 14.7 (6.6), in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The average standard deviation of gap area [μm2] was 21667.2 (3476.4), 9906.4 (1512.1), and 16048.8 (8123). In the minimum distance comparison, groups A and B (p = 0.006) showed statistically significant results. In the gap area comparison, there was no statistical significance among groups A, B, and C (p = 0.174). The marginal adaptations of all three techniques were within a reported clinically acceptable range of margin.展开更多
目的研究不同全瓷材料由同一种CAD/CAM系统制作后其边缘适合性的差异,观察不同材料在烧结、结晶、上釉前后的边缘适合性变化,为临床选择全瓷材料提供一定的参考依据。方法制作前磨牙牙备后树脂试件,分别使用长石类全瓷材料,二硅酸锂全...目的研究不同全瓷材料由同一种CAD/CAM系统制作后其边缘适合性的差异,观察不同材料在烧结、结晶、上釉前后的边缘适合性变化,为临床选择全瓷材料提供一定的参考依据。方法制作前磨牙牙备后树脂试件,分别使用长石类全瓷材料,二硅酸锂全瓷材料和氧化锆全瓷材料在Sirona in Lab CAD/CAM系统中制作全瓷修复体各8个,在体视显微镜下观察各冠边缘与试件间隙。结果在基底冠和全冠两个阶段的边缘间隙,长石类分别为(59.18±8.15)μm和(59.78±8.47)μm,二矽酸锂类分别为(56.16±6.64)μm和(57.22±7.45)μm,氧化锆类分别为(18.12±4.69)μm和(22.36±4.48)μm。其中,长石类与二矽酸锂类的边缘间隙差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但他们与氧化锆类比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。而同组的修复体在两阶段的数据差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论三种材料制作的全冠适合性均在临床可接受的范围内,但氧化锆组更接近美国牙科协会的标准,值得推广应用。展开更多
目的:比较CAD/CAM制作的蜡熔模和树脂熔模与传统滴蜡法制作的蜡熔模对金属基底边缘适合性影响的差异。方法:采用标准模具制作标准代型18个,随机分为A、B、C三组,每组6个,A组代型滴蜡法制作蜡熔模,B组代型CAD/CAM制作蜡熔模,C组代型CAD/...目的:比较CAD/CAM制作的蜡熔模和树脂熔模与传统滴蜡法制作的蜡熔模对金属基底边缘适合性影响的差异。方法:采用标准模具制作标准代型18个,随机分为A、B、C三组,每组6个,A组代型滴蜡法制作蜡熔模,B组代型CAD/CAM制作蜡熔模,C组代型CAD/CAM制作树脂熔模。每一代型及熔模进行四点标记,分别进行包埋铸造,按标记点就位,对每一个代型就位后的金属基底用Leica显微镜在四个标志点对垂直边缘缝隙进行拍照,用Image-Pro Plus 6.0进行测量后,使用SAS9.13对结果进行方差分析及t检验。结果:A组:68.20±24.30μm;B组:46.31±23.43μm;C组:60.58±21.87μm。所有试件的垂直边缘缝隙均在120μm以内。经方差分析及t检验,三组之间(P=0.0061)差异有统计学意义,A、C两组(P=0.2600)之间差异无统计学意义,A组与B组(P=0.0027)、B组与C组(P=0.0343)之间差异均有统计学意义。结论:CAD/CAM制作的蜡熔模与CAD/CAM制作的树脂熔模、传统滴蜡法制作的蜡熔模相比,经铸造后的试件具有较好的边缘适合性。CAD/CAM与传统铸造法结合能获得边缘适合性良好的修复体。展开更多
文摘The aim of this study is to evaluate the maximum and minimum distances between the model and the cast crown of three techniques using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Three technique groups were used for this study: group A (control), traditional manual wax patterns;group B, dipping wax patterns;group C, resin patterns made with CAD/CAM. For each group, 10 samples were made using the same model, and then metal cast. Marginal accuracies of the samples were evaluated by performing gap measurements using SEM with a magnification of 1200× (minimum distance). The data were statistically analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the 0.05 significance level. The average (standard deviation) of the minimum distance [μm] was 22.5 (12.1), 9.9 (4.3), and 14.7 (6.6), in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The average standard deviation of gap area [μm2] was 21667.2 (3476.4), 9906.4 (1512.1), and 16048.8 (8123). In the minimum distance comparison, groups A and B (p = 0.006) showed statistically significant results. In the gap area comparison, there was no statistical significance among groups A, B, and C (p = 0.174). The marginal adaptations of all three techniques were within a reported clinically acceptable range of margin.
文摘目的研究不同全瓷材料由同一种CAD/CAM系统制作后其边缘适合性的差异,观察不同材料在烧结、结晶、上釉前后的边缘适合性变化,为临床选择全瓷材料提供一定的参考依据。方法制作前磨牙牙备后树脂试件,分别使用长石类全瓷材料,二硅酸锂全瓷材料和氧化锆全瓷材料在Sirona in Lab CAD/CAM系统中制作全瓷修复体各8个,在体视显微镜下观察各冠边缘与试件间隙。结果在基底冠和全冠两个阶段的边缘间隙,长石类分别为(59.18±8.15)μm和(59.78±8.47)μm,二矽酸锂类分别为(56.16±6.64)μm和(57.22±7.45)μm,氧化锆类分别为(18.12±4.69)μm和(22.36±4.48)μm。其中,长石类与二矽酸锂类的边缘间隙差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但他们与氧化锆类比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。而同组的修复体在两阶段的数据差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论三种材料制作的全冠适合性均在临床可接受的范围内,但氧化锆组更接近美国牙科协会的标准,值得推广应用。
文摘目的:比较CAD/CAM制作的蜡熔模和树脂熔模与传统滴蜡法制作的蜡熔模对金属基底边缘适合性影响的差异。方法:采用标准模具制作标准代型18个,随机分为A、B、C三组,每组6个,A组代型滴蜡法制作蜡熔模,B组代型CAD/CAM制作蜡熔模,C组代型CAD/CAM制作树脂熔模。每一代型及熔模进行四点标记,分别进行包埋铸造,按标记点就位,对每一个代型就位后的金属基底用Leica显微镜在四个标志点对垂直边缘缝隙进行拍照,用Image-Pro Plus 6.0进行测量后,使用SAS9.13对结果进行方差分析及t检验。结果:A组:68.20±24.30μm;B组:46.31±23.43μm;C组:60.58±21.87μm。所有试件的垂直边缘缝隙均在120μm以内。经方差分析及t检验,三组之间(P=0.0061)差异有统计学意义,A、C两组(P=0.2600)之间差异无统计学意义,A组与B组(P=0.0027)、B组与C组(P=0.0343)之间差异均有统计学意义。结论:CAD/CAM制作的蜡熔模与CAD/CAM制作的树脂熔模、传统滴蜡法制作的蜡熔模相比,经铸造后的试件具有较好的边缘适合性。CAD/CAM与传统铸造法结合能获得边缘适合性良好的修复体。
