Different factors can affect the manufacturing accuracy of additively manufactured dental devices; however, the influence of print orientation and wet-dry storage time on their intaglio accuracy remains uncertain. The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of print orientation (0, 45, 70, and 90 degrees) and wet-dry storage time (0, 30, 60, and 90 days) on the intaglio accuracy of additively manufactured occlusal devices. An occlusal device design was obtained in a standard tessellation language (STL) file format (control file) which was used to fabricate all the specimens by using a stereolithography printer (Form 3+) and a biocompatible resin material (Dental LT Clear Resin, V2). Four groups were created based on the print orientation used to manufacture the specimens: 0, 45, 70, and 90 degrees. Each group was divided into 4 subgroups depending on the time elapsed between manufacturing and accuracy evaluation: 0, 30, 60, and 90 days. For the subgroup 0, a desktop scanner (T710) was used to digitize all the specimens. The 30-day subgroup specimens were stored for 30 days with the following daily storage protocol: 16 hours inside a dry lightproof container, followed by 8 hours in artificial saliva (1700-0305 Artificial Saliva) inside the same lightproof container. The specimens were then digitized by following the same procedures used for subgroup 0. For the subgroups 60 and 90, the identical procedures described for subgroup 30 were completed but after 60 and 90 days of storage, respectively. The reference STL file was used to measure the intaglio discrepancy with the experimental scans obtained among the different subgroups by using the root mean square error calculation. Two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α=.05). Print orientation (P<.001) and usage time (P<.001) were significant predictors of the trueness value obtained. Additionally, the 0-degree print orientation at day 0 group demonstrated the best trueness value among all the groups tested (P<.05). No significant trueness discrepancies were found among the 45-, 70-, and 90-degree print orientation, or among the 30, 60, and 90 days of storage. A significant precision difference was found in the variance between print orientation groups across usage time subgroups. The print orientation and wet-dry storage times tested influenced the trueness and precision of the intaglio surfaces of the occlusal devices manufactured with the 3D printer and material selected.

(1) Background: Facial scanners are used in different fields of dentistry to digitalize the soft tissues of the patient’s face. The development of technology has allowed the patient to have a 3-dimensional virtual representation, facilitating facial integration in the diagnosis and treatment plan. However, the accuracy of the facial scanner and the obtaining of better results with respect to the manual or two-dimensional (2D) method are questionable. The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of the 3D method (a dual-structured light facial scanner) and compare it with the 2D method (photography) to obtain facial analysis in the maximum intercuspation position and smile position. (2) Methods: A total of 60 participants were included, and nine facial landmarks and five interlandmarks distances were determined by two independent calibrated operators for each participant. All measurements were made using three methods: the manual method (manual measurement), the 2D method (photography), and the 3D method (facial scanner). All clinical and lighting conditions, as well as the specific parameters of each method, were standardized and controlled. The facial interlandmark distances were made by using a digital caliper, a 2D software program (Adobe Photoshop, version 21.0.2), and a 3D software program (Meshlab, version 2020.12), respectively. The data were analyzed by SPSS statistical software. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test revealed that trueness and precision values were normally distributed (p > 0.05), so a Student’s t-test was employed. (3) Results: Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.01) were observed in all interlandmark measurements in the 2D group (photography) to compare with the manual group. The 2D method obtained a mean accuracy value of 2.09 (±3.38) and 2.494 (±3.67) in maximum intercuspation and smile, respectively. On the other hand, the 3D method (facial scanner) obtained a mean accuracy value of 0.61 (±1.65) and 0.28 (±2.03) in maximum intercuspation and smile, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences with the manual method. (4) Conclusions: The employed technique demonstrated that it influences the accuracy of facial records. The 3D method reported acceptable accuracy values, while the 2D method showed discrepancies over the clinically acceptable limits.

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the microgaps at the implant–abutment interface when zirconia (Zr) and CAD/CAM or cast Co–Cr abutments were used. Methods: Sixty-four conical connection implants and their abutments were divided into four groups (Co–Cr (milled, laser-sintered and castable) and Zirconia (milled)). After chewing simulation (300,000 cycles, under 200 N loads at 2 Hz at a 30° angle) and thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5 to 50 °C, dwelling time 55 s), the implant–abutment microgap was measured 14 times at each of the four anatomical aspects on each specimen by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Kruskal–Wallis and pair-wise comparison were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). Results: The SEM analysis revealed smaller microgaps with Co–Cr milled abutments (0.69–8.39 μm) followed by Zr abutments (0.12–6.57 μm), Co–Cr sintered (7.31–25.7 μm) and cast Co–Cr (1.68–85.97 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between milled and cast Co–Cr, milled and laser-sintered Co–Cr, and between Zr and cast and laser-sintered Co–Cr (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The material and the abutment fabrication technique affected the implant–abutment microgap magnitude. The Zr and the milled Co–Cr presented smaller microgaps. Although the CAD/CAM abutments presented the most favorable values, all tested groups had microgaps within a range of 10 to 150 μm.

To measure the effect of different tooth preparation finishing procedures (super-coarse grit, fine grit, and air-particle abrasion) and immediate dentin sealing (IDS) on the scanning accuracy of 4 intraoral scanners (IOSs). A tooth preparation for a full-coverage restoration was performed on an extracted mandibular molar using super-coarse diamond burs. Four groups were created depending on the tooth preparation finishing procedure: super-coarse grit (bur with a grit size of 150 µm) (SCG group), fine grit (bur with a grit size of 30 µm) (FG), air-particle abrasion with 27-µm aluminum oxide particles (APA group), and IDS (IDS group). Each group was divided into 5 subgroups according to the scanning system used to digitize the tooth preparation: laboratory scanner (control subgroup) (T710; Medit), Trios 4 (Trios subgroup), CS 3800 (CS subgroup), i700 wireless (i700 subgroup), and iTero Element 5D Plus (iTero subgroup) (n=20). For each subgroup, the control file was aligned with each experimental scan using the best-fit algorithm and an engineering program (Geomagic Control X). The discrepancy between the control and experimental files of each subgroup was computed by measuring the root mean square (RMS) error. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α=.05). Tooth preparation finishing procedures (P<.001) and the IOS assessed (P<.001) were significant predictors of the trueness and precision values obtained. The highest trueness and precision values were measured in the APA group, while the IDS group had the lowest trueness and precision. Additionally, the i700 subgroup obtained the highest trueness and precision values, while the CS and Trios subgroups had the lowest trueness and precision values. The different tooth preparations finishing procedures tested influenced on the scanning accuracy of the 4 IOSs considered. The air-particle abrasion procedure obtained the best accuracy values. The trueness discrepancies measured among all the subgroups was 19µm and the precision discrepancies measured among all the subgroups was 4.69 µm. The tooth preparation finishing procedure used can reduce the intraoral scanning accuracy of any of the intraoral scanners tested. The air-particle abrasion finishing procedure might be recommended for maximizing the scanning accuracy of the IOSs tested.