Fit of three-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses made from tetragonal zirconia polycrystal by 3D printing and milling
Objective: To compare the marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed and milled three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) made from tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (3Y-TZP). (2) Methods: Three-unit FDPs were designed for a typodont maxillary model with crown preparation for the second premolar and seco...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article (Journal) |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
3 February 2026
|
| In: |
Materials
Year: 2026, Volume: 19, Issue: 3, Pages: 1-18 |
| ISSN: | 1996-1944 |
| DOI: | 10.3390/ma19030597 |
| Online Access: | Verlag, kostenfrei, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma19030597 Verlag, kostenfrei, Volltext: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/19/3/597 
|
| Author Notes: | Jana Kostunov, Jannis Crocoll, Sebastian Hetzler, Peter Rammelsberg, Jonas Zeiß, Andreas Zenthöfer and Stefan Rues |
| Summary: | Objective: To compare the marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed and milled three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) made from tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (3Y-TZP). (2) Methods: Three-unit FDPs were designed for a typodont maxillary model with crown preparation for the second premolar and second molar. Nominal cement gap widths were set to 30 µm at the margins and 80 µm internally. A total of 40 FDPs (n = 10/group) differing in wall thickness (w = 0.6/1.0 mm) and support structures (with/without a stiffening frame) were fabricated from 3Y-TZP by 3D printing. A total of 10 milled FDPs with w = 0.6 mm served as a control group. After adhesive cementation on the respective replicated maxillary models, FDPs were sectioned and the cement gap dimension was assessed with a digital microscope. The marginal and internal fit found for the different test groups were compared using non-parametric tests. (3) Results: The best marginal fit - qualified by median/maximum marginal gap width - was given for milled FDPs (79/127 µm vertical; 85/171 µm tangential), whereas the marginal fit of 3D-printed FDPs with w = 0.6 mm and regular support structures was the worst (144/284 µm vertical; 107/198 µm tangential). Use of an additional support frame improved the marginal fit of 3D-printed FDPs, in particular FDPs with w = 0.6 mm (108/197 µm vertical; 87/161 µm tangential). (4) Conclusions: 3D-printed zirconia FDPs showed conditionally comparable marginal and internal fit as their milled counterparts, but with slightly higher scattering. When fabricating thinner 3D-printed FDPs, additional support structures are mandatory to achieve clinically well-fitting restorations. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Veröffentlicht: 3. Februar 2026 Gesehen am 18.03.2026 |
| Physical Description: | Online Resource |
| ISSN: | 1996-1944 |
| DOI: | 10.3390/ma19030597 |