The digital workflow in dentistry has proven in the past decades to be a time-efficient, multifunctional, effortless, and accessible approach. The inherited shortages milling machines represented by the incapability to produce accurate complex hollow structures may give preference to modern 3D ceramic printing. Computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in dentistry is a digital subtractive approach for manufacturing indirect restorations. Nevertheless, waste materials and milling burs wearing are considered as key disadvantages of CAD/CAM technology, and are the main drive to improve 3D printing technology (additive manufacturing) as the latter has shown considerable efficiency in minimising wasted materials. Although additive manufacturing has been known since the 1980s, its application in dentistry is relatively new and not fully studied with limited research and in vivo studies on their clinical performance.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
50
The digital workflow in dentistry has proven in the past decades to be a time-efficient, multifunctional, effortless, and accessible approach. The inherited shortages milling machines represented by the incapability to produce accurate complex hollow structures may give preference to modern 3D ceramic printing. Computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in dentistry is a digital subtractive approach for manufacturing indirect restorations. Nevertheless, waste materials and milling burs wearing are considered as key disadvantages of CAD/CAM technology, and are the main drive to improve 3D printing technology (additive manufacturing) as the latter has shown considerable efficiency in minimising wasted materials.
3D printing technologies are developing more intensively in dentistry as this technology has the capacity to produce shapes or models with high accuracy and in a short time. This method of fabrication takes less time and money and saves on materials compared to CAD/CAM. Although it seems that digital manufacturing technology has made great changes in the restorative dentistry field, this technology is still not fully in use. This is possibly because of the lack of studies and research on this technology, particularly in terms of clinical performance and patient-centred outcomes. 3D printing technologies are novel technologies with a lack of research; therefore, the processing of 3D printing materials is still controversial.
Fracture
This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted
Time frame: One Year
Retention
This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted
Time frame: One Year
Marginal adaptation
This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted
Time frame: One Year
Marginal discoloration
This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted
Time frame: One Year
Secondary caries
This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted
Time frame: One Year
Post-operative hypersensitivity
This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted
Time frame: One Year
Surface texture
This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted
Time frame: One Year
Anatomic form
This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted
Time frame: One Year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.