RESUMO
With the great demand in the market for new dental software, the need has been seen to carry out a precision study for applications in digital dentistry, for which there is no comparative study, and there is a general ignorance regarding their applications. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy differences between digital impressions obtained using generic G-CAD (general CAD) and D-CAD (CAD dental) software. Today, there is a difference between the design software used in dentistry and these in common use. Thus, it is necessary to make a comparison of precision software for specific and generic dental use. We hypothesized that there is no significant difference between the software for specific and general dental use. METHODS: A typodont was digitized with an intraoral scanner and the models obtained were exported in STL format to four different softwares (Autodesk MeshMixer 3.5, Exocad Dental, Blender for dental, and InLAB). The STL files obtained by each software were materialized using a 3D printer. The printed models were scanned and exported in STL files, with which six pairs of groups were formed. The groups were compared using analysis software (3D Geomagic Control X) by superimposing them in the initial alignment order and using the best fit method. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the four analyzed software types; however, group 4, composed of the combination of D-CAD (Blender-InLAB), obtained the highest average (-0.0324 SD = 0.0456), with a higher accuracy compared to the group with the lowest average (group 5, composed of the combination of the Meshmixer and Blender models), a generic software and a specific software (0.1024 SD = 0.0819). CONCLUSION: Although no evidence of significant difference was found regarding the accuracy of 3D models produced by G-CAD and D-CAD, combinations of groups where specific dental design software was present showed higher accuracy (precision and trueness). The comparison of the 3D graphics obtained with the superimposition of the digital meshes of the printed models performed with the help of the analysis software using the best fit method, replicating the same five reference points for the six groups formed, evidenced a greater tolerance in the groups using D-CAD.
RESUMO
Antecedentes: La formación de la capa híbrida debe ser proporcional a la capacidad de los cementos para retener con éxito postes de fibra de vidrio en el interior del conducto preparado endodónticamente. Objetivo: Medir el espesor de la capa híbrida en los tercios coronal y apical as usar cementos autograbadores de uno y dos pasos. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio experimental con 30 premolares humanos que se trataron endodónticamente y se asignaron a tres grupos. Se cementaron postes de fibra de vidrio con tres cementos siguiendo las instrucciones de los fabricantes. Se realizaron cortes coronales y apicales y se cuantificó el grosor de la capa híbrida por microscopía electrónica de barrido. Los datos se analizaron con las pruebas estadísticas H de Kruskal-Wallis y U de Mann-Whitney (p<0,05). Resultados: El promedio del grosor de la capa híbrida fue de 0,74 mm con Multilink N® (grupo 1), 0,24 mm con RelyX Ultimate® (grupo 2) y 0,03 mm con RelyX U200® (grupo 3) (p = 0,0092). Los promedios en los tercios coronal y apical fueron: 1,29 mm y 0,19 mm para el grupo 1; 0,33 mm y 0,14 mm para el grupo 2 y 0,26 mm y 0,23 mm para el grupo 3, diferencias que fueron estadísticamente significativas (p = 0,043). Conclusiones: El espesor de la capa híbrida formada con el uso de los cementos de dos pasos fue mayor que con el cemento de un solo paso, especialmente en la porción coronal.
Background: Hybrid layer formation should be proportional to cement properties to successfully retain fiberglass posts into root canals. Purpose: To measure of hybrid layer thickness in coronal and apical thirds after using one-step and two-step self-etching cements. Methods: This experimental study used 30 human premolars with root-canal treatments, which were assigned into three groups. Fiberglass posts were cemented with three types of self-etching cements following manufacturers' instructions. Roots were cut in the coronal and apical thirds and hybrid layer thickness was quantified through scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p < 0.05). Results: Average thickness of the hybrid layer was 0.74 µm with Multilink N™ (group 1), 0.24 µm with RelyX Ultimate™ (group 2), and 0.03 µm with RelyX U200™ (group 3) (p = 0.0092). Average thickness in coronal and apical thirds were: 1.29 µm and 0.19 µm for group 1; 0.33 µm and 0.14 µm for group 2; and 0.26 µm and 0.23 µm for group 3, differences that were statistically significant (p = 0.043). Conclusions: The thickness of the hybrid layer formed after suing two-step cements was greater than that of one-step cement, especially in the tooth coronal third.