International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2021 ) > List of Articles


An In Vitro Evaluation of 3D-printed Provisional Restoration Marginal Adaptation on Diverse Finish Lines

Roushan Kumar, Mahesh Suganna, Rafi Ahmed, Maneesh K Rajan

Keywords : 3D printing, Chamfer, Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture milling, Marginal Discrepancy, Shoulder

Citation Information : Kumar R, Suganna M, Ahmed R, Rajan MK. An In Vitro Evaluation of 3D-printed Provisional Restoration Marginal Adaptation on Diverse Finish Lines. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2021; 11 (2):82-87.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1313

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: Interim restorations are a crucial part of fixed prosthodontic treatment. Frequently such prostheses are used to serve the purpose of the therapeutical strength of a specific treatment plan or the form and function of the designed definitive prosthesis. The present study has been projected to value the marginal fit of two dissimilar interim restorations fabricated by 3D printing and milling technique on two different finish lines (shoulder and chamfer). Materials and methods: Two typodont models of maxillary central incisors comprised prepared for the full coverage of dental restorations. Each typodont model was prepared using two different finish lines one with chamfer (C) and the other shoulder (S). Both the preparations were digitally scanned and exported as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) to software for the designing and fabrication of the full coverage dental restorations. Total 24 restorations were fabricated, 12 were 3D printed and 12 were computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) milled. In both types of restorations, half was fabricated on the chamfer finish line and the remaining half was fabricated on the shoulder finish line. Descriptive and independent t-test was done for intergroup comparison. Quantitative data were summarized using mean and standard deviation with a significance level of p < 0.001. Results: In this study, it was found that on shoulder finish line CAD/CAM-milled restoration showed the maximum mean marginal gap in the cervical margin as 77.42 μm, while 3D printed showed a gap of 41.08 μm. On the shoulder finish line 3D-printed restoration showed a maximum mean marginal gap in the cervical margin as 48.25 μm, while CAD/CAM milled showed a gap of 89.00 μm. There was a statistically highly significant difference present in the marginal gap between CAD/CAM and 3D printing at various locations in restoration with shoulder/chamfer finish line. There was no statistically significant difference in the marginal gap in both finish lines irrespective of the fabrication method. Conclusion: Both the shoulder and chamfer finish lines were equally effective. Restorations fabricated by 3D printing had less marginal gap than CAD/CAM milling but both values were within the clinically acceptable limit.

  1. Nawafleh NA. Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review. J Prosthet dent 2013;22(5):419–428. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12006.
  2. Gratton DG, Aquilino SA. Interim restorations. Dent Clin N America 2004;48(2):487–497. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2003.12.007.
  3. Dawood A, Marti BM, Sauret-Jackson V, et al. 3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J 2015;219(11):521–529. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.914.
  4. Jedynakiewicz NM, Martin N. CEREC: science, research, and clinical application. The Compend Contin Edu Dentis 2001;22(6 Suppl):7–13.
  5. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, et al. New direct restorative materials. FDI commission project. Int Dent J 1998;48(1):3–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.1998.tb00688.x.
  6. Bayne SC, Heymann HO. CAD/CAM in dentistry: present and future applications. Quintess Int (Current Concepts) 1996;27:431–433.
  7. Tsitrou EA, Northeast SE, van Noort R. Evaluation of the marginal fit of three margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD/CAM. J Dentis 2007;35(1):68–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.04.008.
  8. Borba M, Cesar PF, Griggs JA, et al. Adaptation of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater 2011;27(11):119–126. DOI: 10.1016/
  9. Contrepois M, Soenen A, Bartala M, et al. Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(6):447–454.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.003.
  10. Liang S, Yuan F, Luo X, et al. Digital evaluation of absolute marginal discrepancy: a comparison of ceramic crowns fabricated with conventional and digital techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120(4):525–529. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.014.
  11. Euán R, Figueras-Álvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, et al. Comparison of the marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide crowns in preparations with two different finish lines. J Prosthet Dent 2012;21(4):291–295. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00831.x.
  12. Comlekoglu M, Dundar M, Ozcan M, et al. Influence of cervical finish line type on the marginal adaptation of zirconia ceramic crowns. Operat Dentis 2009;34(5):586–592. DOI: 10.2341/08-076-L.
  13. Cho L, Choi JM, Yi YJ, et al. Effect of finish line variants on marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceramic optimized polymer/fiber-reinforced composite crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91(6):554–560. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.03.004.
  14. Alharbi N, Alharbi S, Cuijpers VM, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed interim restorations fabricated on different finish line designs. J Prosthod Res 2018;62(2):218–226. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.09.002.
  15. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, et al. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabilit 2014;41(11):853–874. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12205.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.