Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11499/34996
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKocaağaoğlu, Hasan-
dc.contributor.authorAlbayrak, Haydar-
dc.contributor.authorCinel Şahin, Sezgi-
dc.contributor.authorGüleryüz Gürbulak, Ayşegül-
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-10T08:58:20Z
dc.date.available2020-06-10T08:58:20Z
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.issn2005-7806-
dc.identifier.issn2005-7814-
dc.identifier.issn2005-7806-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11499/34996-
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.262-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal misfits of three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and digital impressions techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty brass canine and second premolar abutment preparations were fabricated by using a computer numerical control machine and were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=10) as follows: conventional impression group (Group Ci), Cerec Omnicam (Group Cdi), and 3shape TRIOS-3 (Group Tdi) digital impression groups. The laser-sintered metal frameworks were designed and fabricated with conventional and digital impressions. The marginal adaptation was assessed with a stereomicroscope at ×30 magnification. The data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and the independent simple t tests. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found between the frameworks fabricated by conventional methods and those fabricated by digital impression methods. Multiple comparison results revealed that the frameworks in Group Ci (average, 98.8 ± 16.43 µm; canine, 93.59 ± 16.82 µm; premolar, 104.10 ± 15.02 µm) had larger marginal misfit values than those in Group Cdi (average, 63.78 ± 14.05 µm; canine, 62.73 ± 13.71 µm; premolar, 64.84 ± 15.06 µm) and Group Tdi (average, 65.14 ± 18.05 µm; canine, 70.64 ± 19.02 µm; premolar, 59.64 ± 16.10 µm) (P=.000 for average; P=.001 for canine; P<.001 for premolar). No statistical difference was found between the marginal misfits of canine and premolar abutment teeth within the same groups (P>.05). CONCLUSION: The three-unit frameworks fabricated with digital impression techniques showed better marginal fit compared to conventional impression techniques. All marginal misfit values were clinically acceptable.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofThe journal of advanced prosthodonticsen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of marginal adaptation in three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and powder-free digital impression techniques.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.volume11en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.startpage262-270
dc.identifier.startpageLID - 10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.262 [doi]
dc.identifier.startpage262en_US
dc.identifier.endpage270en_US
dc.identifier.endpageLIDen_US
dc.authorid0000-0001-7623-782X-
dc.authorid0000-0003-3072-7211-
dc.authorid0000-0002-2833-1317-
dc.authorid0000-0002-9026-4901-
dc.identifier.doi10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.262-
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.identifier.pmid31754416en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85078472815en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000496952400004en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2-
dc.ownerPamukkale University-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextopen-
crisitem.author.dept06.01. Clinical Sciences-
Appears in Collections:Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / PubMed Indexed Publications Collection
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / Scopus Indexed Publications Collection
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / WoS Indexed Publications Collection
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
evaluation.pdf2.36 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record



CORE Recommender

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

5
checked on Oct 13, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

4
checked on Oct 31, 2024

Page view(s)

52
checked on Aug 24, 2024

Download(s)

28
checked on Aug 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check




Altmetric


Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.