Evaluation of fracture resistance and marginal fit of implant-supported interim crowns fabricated by conventional, additive and subtractive methods

Abstract

Background: Interim crowns are utilized for restoring implants during and after the process of osseointegration. However, studies on adaptation and fracture strength of implant-supported interim crowns are rare. Aim of the study: The aim of this in vitro study is evaluating marginal fit and fracture resistance of conventional, subtractive, and additive methods of fabricating implant-supported interim crowns. Materials and methods: An implant was placed in an epoxy resin model with a missing first molar. A scan body was attached, and scanned with an intraoral scanner (IOS), the STL file was used to fabricate eighteen master models with standardized implant digital analogue spaces. The digital analogues and their corresponding abutments were attached to the master models and scanned with the IOS, the STL files were used to fabricate eighteen crowns using three different techniques (n = 6): conventional (CR); from Autopolymerizing composite resin, subtractive (SM); milled from PMMA resin blanks, and additive (AM); from 3D printed resin material. The crowns were fitted and cemented on their corresponding abutments and subjected to cyclic loading and thermocycling. The marginal fit was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. The crowns were then loaded until fractured in a universal testing machine. The Shapiro–Wilk and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests revealed that data of Marginal gap was non-parametric. Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn test was used (α = 0.05). While data of Fracture resistance test was parametric. ANOVA (F-test) was used followed by the Tukey test (α = 0.05). Results: For marginal gap, a significant difference was shown between the study groups (P =.001) according to Kruskal–Wallis test. Groups SM and AM had significantly lower marginal gap values compared to group CR (P =.003). No significant difference was found between groups SM and AM (P =.994). For fracture resistance, One-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in fracture resistance between study groups (P