Interproximal distance analysis of stereolithographic casts made by CAD-CAM technology: An in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The accuracy of interproximal distances of the definitive casts made by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology is not yet known.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the interproximal distances of stereolithographic casts made by CAD-CAM technology with those of stone casts made by the conventional method.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dentoform teeth were prepared for a single ceramic crown on the maxillary left central incisor, a 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) on the second premolar for a metal-ceramic crown, and a maxillary right first molar for a metal crown. Twenty digital intraoral impressions were made on the dentoform with an intraoral digital impression scanner. The digital impression files were used to fabricate 20 sets of stereolithographic casts, 10 definitive casts for the single ceramic crown, and 10 definitive casts for the FDP. Furthermore, 20 stone casts were made by the conventional method using polyvinyl siloxane impression material with a custom tray. Each definitive cast for stereolithographic cast and stone cast consisted of removable die-sectioned casts (DC) and nonsectioned solid casts (SC). Measurements of interproximal distance of each cast were made using CAD software to provide mean ±standard deviation (SD) values. Data were first analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), using different methods of cast fabrication (stone and stereolithography) as one within subject factor and different cast types (DC and SC) as another within subject factor. Post hoc analyses were performed to investigate the differences between stone and stereolithographic casts depending upon the results from the repeated measures ANOVA (α=.05).

RESULTS: Analysis of interproximal distances showed the mean ±SD value of the single ceramic crown group was 31.2 ±24.5 μm for stone casts and 261.0 ±116.1 μm for stereolithographic casts, whereas the mean ±SD value for the FDP group was 46.0 ±35.0 μm for stone casts and 292.8 ±216.6 μm for stereolithographic casts. For both the single ceramic crown and the FDP groups, there were significant differences in interproximal distances between stereolithographic casts and stone casts (P<.001). In addition, the comparisons of DC with SC of stone and stereolithographic casts for the single ceramic crown and FDP groups demonstrated there was statistically significant differences among interproximal distances between DC stereolithographic casts and SC stereolithographic casts only for the FDP group (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS: For both the single ceramic crown and the FDP groups, the stereolithographic cast group showed significantly larger interproximal distances than the stone cast group. In terms of the comparison between DC and SC, DC stereolithographic casts for the FDP group only showed significantly larger interproximal values than those of the SC stereolithographic casts for the FDP group.