Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¿Î½º ¹Ð¸µ ¹æ¹ý ¹× µðÁöÅÐ ±¤ ÇÁ·ÎÁ§¼Ç ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î Á¦ÀÛµÈ 3º» ±Ý¼Ó ±¸Á¶¹°ÀÇ ÀûÇÕµµ ºñ±³

Comparison the fit of three-unit metal framework fabricated by wax milling method and digital light projection method

´ëÇÑÄ¡°ú±â°øÇÐȸÁö 2019³â 41±Ç 1È£ p.9 ~ 19
ÀÌÁ¤È¯, ¾ÈÀç¼®,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌÁ¤È¯ ( Lee Jung-Hwan ) - ±¤ÁÖº¸°Ç´ëÇб³ Ä¡±â°ø°ú
¾ÈÀç¼® ( Ahn Jae-Seok ) - ±¤ÁÖº¸°Ç´ëÇб³ Ä¡±â°ø°ú

Abstract


Purpose: This study was conducted to comparative evaluate the marginal and internal gap of three-unit metal frameworks(Co-Cr) fabricated by wax milling method and digital light projection method of CAD/CAM systems.

Methods: All the specimens were fabricated by three different fabrication methods: conventional wax up with casting(CWC), milled wax block with casting(MWC), digital light projection with casting(DLPC) (n=10 each). The marginal and internal fits of specimens were examined using a replica technique. The light-body silicone thickness was measured at 8 reference points(each abutment: 16 measurements). All measurements were conducted by a stereomicroscope. Digital photo were taken at 150¡¿ magnification and then analyzed using a measurement software. The Mann-Whitney test was used for analyzing the results.

Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the fabrication methods(p<0.001). The mean(SD) is ¥ìm for fabrication methods, the mean marginal fit were recorded respectively, CWC 63(38), MWC group 50(33), DLPC 103(54) and the mean internal fit CWC 96(47), MWC group 116(41), DLPC 138(66).

Conclusion : The marginal and internal fit were statistically different according to the fabrication methods(p<0.001). In all fabrication methods, the greatest misfit was found the occlusal area of all specimens.

Å°¿öµå

Accuracy; Marginal and internal fit; Marginal discrepancies; Metal framework; Three unit substructure

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI