Statement of problem: Determining the effect of additive and subtractive manufacturing on marginal and internal fit in restorations with more than one unit is important, which are less discussed in the literature.
Purpose: This in vitro study aims to evaluate the effect of subtractive and additive manufacturing on the marginal and internal fit of provisional fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) using Micro-CT.
Materials and methods: Model teeth were prepared with 2 mm occlusal, 1.5 mm axial reduction, and chamfer finish line. After digital impressions with laboratory scanner, provisional crown and bridge restorations were designed with Exo-CAD software. All restorations were produced using 2 different production methods (n = 10). Marginal and internal fit of restorations were evaluated micrometrically and volumetrically with Micro-CT. Shapiro Wilk normality test and Levene test for variance homogeneity were used for data distributions. The Independent Sample T Test was used for normally distributed data, and the Mann Whitney-U Test was used for those not normally distributed to compare the independent groups. The two-way ANOVA test was used to examine the difference between normally distributed independent groups with the interaction effect, and the Scheirer Ray Hare test was used for non-normally distributed groups. Post-hoc Corrected Bonferroni tests were performed to reveal the group or groups that made the difference (α = 0.05).
Results: The fabrication method affected marginal and internal fit for both resin crowns and bridges (α = 0.05). The additive method showed a better fit for crowns than the subtractive method. For bridges, it was found that a better fit was generally achieved with the subtractive method.
Conclusions: In both crown and bridge restorations, the marginal fit was higher than the internal fit in both production techniques. The additive technique provided a better fit for crown restoration, and the subtractive technique provided a better fit for bridge restoration. The production method significantly affected marginal fit.
Clinical significance: While almost any type of restoration can be produced with subtractive manufacturing, additive manufacturing is mostly seen in single-unit treatments. Predicting that additive manufacturing will also achieve this goal is not difficult. Hence, examining additive manufacturing in study protocols where the units are increased is important.
Keywords: Additive CADCAM; Additive manufacturing; Bridge; Crown; DLP; Fit; Microcomputed tomography; Subtractive CADCAM; Subtractive manufacturing.
© 2025. The Author(s).