Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Dimensional accuracy of additive and subtractive manufactured ceramic-reinforced hybrid composite inlays: a CBCT-based in vitro study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Dimensional accuracy of additive and subtractive manufactured ceramic-reinforced hybrid composite inlays: a CBCT-based in vitro study
Do you wish to request the book?
Dimensional accuracy of additive and subtractive manufactured ceramic-reinforced hybrid composite inlays: a CBCT-based in vitro study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Dimensional accuracy of additive and subtractive manufactured ceramic-reinforced hybrid composite inlays: a CBCT-based in vitro study
2025
Overview
The dimensional accuracy of digitally processed inlays is often questioned because of inherent manufacturing inconsistencies associated with computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM). This study aimed to compare the absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD), marginal gap (MG), internal gap (IG), and overall discrepancy (OD) of three-dimensional (3D) printed, milled and conventional inlays. Forty resin dies were 3D-printed from a class II mesiococclusodistal preparation on a typodont and randomly distributed into four groups of 10 each. Optical impressions were taken for three groups to fabricate CAD/CAM inlays: Group PVC, 3D printed VarseoSmile Crownplus; Group PVT, 3D printed VarseoSmile TriniQ; and Group MVE, milled using Vita Enamic. For Group CGP (control), CGP was conventionally fabricated using Gradia Plus. These inlays were stabilized on dies and subjected to cone‒beam computed tomography to measure discrepancies in mesiodistal and buccolingual sectional images. All the discrepancies differed significantly among the groups (one-way ANOVA,
P
> 0.05). The mean OD was significantly greater in the MVE than in the PVT and CGP; the mean AMD and MG were significantly greater in the PVC than in the PVT (Tukey test,
P
> 0.05). Compared with the other groups, the 3D-printed inlays, especially the VarseoSmile TriniQ, presented a closer marginal and internal fit.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
