Mohammed Mujtaba Methani M.S.

Piedra-Cascón, W., M. M. Methani, N. Quesada-Olmo, M. J. Jiménez-Martínez and M. Revilla-León (2020). “Scanning accuracy of nondental structured light extraoral scanners compared with that of a dental-specific scanner.” J Prosthet Dent.

Full text of this article.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Diagnostic stone casts can be digitized by using dental optical scanners based on structured light scanning technology. Nondental structured light scanning scanners could also be used; however, the accuracy of these nondental scanners remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) of 3 nondental extraoral structured light scanners. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A representative maxillary diagnostic cast was obtained and digitized by using an extraoral dental scanner (Advaa Lab Scan; GC Europe), and a reference or control standard tessellation language file was obtained. Three nondental extraoral scanners were evaluated: groups ND-1 (Space Spider; Artec), ND-2 (Capture Mini; Geomagic), and ND-3 (DAVID SLS3; David). Ten digital scans per group were recorded at a constant room temperature (23 °C) by an experienced geodetic engineer following the manufacturer’s recommendations. The control or reference file was used as a reference to measure the discrepancy between the digitized diagnostic cast and 3 different nondental scans by using an open-source software (CloudCompare v.2.6.1; CloudCompare) and the iterative closest point technique. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were normally distributed. The data were analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA, followed by post hoc Bonferroni tests (α=.05). RESULTS: Significant differences between the 3 experimental nondental scanners and the control or reference scan (P<.001) were found. The ND-2 group had the lowest absolute mean error (trueness) and standard deviation (precision) (39 ±139 μm), followed by the ND-3 group (125 ±113 μm) and the ND1 group (-397 ±25 μm). No statistically significant differences were found in the mean error between the ND-2 and ND-3 groups (P=.228). CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 nondental extraoral scanner tested obtained trueness mean values similar to those of the reference dental scanner. In all groups, the precision mean values were higher than their trueness values, indicating low relative precision.

Revilla-León, M., N. A. Husain, M. M. Methani and M. Özcan (2020). “Chemical composition, surface roughness, and ceramic bond strength of additively manufactured cobalt-chromium dental alloys.” J Prosthet Dent May 25;S0022-3913(20)30227-4. [Epub ahead of print.].

Full text of this article.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Selective laser melting (SLM) additive manufacturing (AM) technology is a current option to fabricate cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) metal frameworks for dental prostheses. However, the Co-Cr alloy composition, surface roughness, and ceramic bond strength values that SLM metals can obtain are not well-defined. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the chemical composition, surface roughness, and ceramic shear bond strength of the milled and SLM Co-Cr dental alloys. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 50 disks of 5 mm in diameter and 1 mm in thickness were fabricated by using subtractive (control group) and AM with each of following SLM providers: SLM-1 (EOS), SLM-2 (3D systems), and SLM-3 (Concept Laser). The milled disks were airborne-particle abraded with 100-μm aluminum oxide particles. All the specimens were cleaned before surface roughness (Ra), weight (Wt%), and atomic (At%) percentages were analyzed. Three-dimensional profilometry was used to analyze the topographical properties of the surface parameters Ra (mean surface roughness). The chemical composition of Co-Cr alloy specimens was determined by using energy dispersive X-ray (EDAX) elemental analysis in a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Thereafter, the specimens were bonded to a ceramic (Dentine A3 and Enamel S-59; Creation CC) interface. Specimens were stored for 24 hours at 23 °C. The bond strength of the SLM-ceramic interface was measured by using the macroshear test (SBT) method (n=10). Adhesion tests were performed in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the chemical composition data were not normally distributed. Therefore, the atomic (At%) and weight percentages (Wt%) were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests between the control and AM groups (AM-1 to AM-4). However, the Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the surface roughness (Ra) and ceramic bond strength data were normally distributed. Therefore, data were analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA, followed by the post hoc Sidak test (α=.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were obtained in Wt%, At%, and Ra values among the Co-Cr alloys evaluated (P<.05). Furthermore, the control group revealed significantly lower mean ±standard deviation Ra values (0.79 ±0.11 μm), followed by AM-3 (1.57 ±0.15 μm), AM-2 (1.80 ±0.43 μm), AM-1 (2.43 ±0.34 μm), and AM-4 (2.84 ±0.27 μm). However, no significant differences were obtained in the metal-ceramic shear bond strength among the different groups evaluated, ranging from mean ±standard deviation 75.77 ±11.92 MPa to 83.65 ±12.21 MPa. CONCLUSIONS: Co-Cr dental alloys demonstrated a significant difference in their chemical compositions. Subtractive and additive manufacturing procedures demonstrated a significant influence on the surface roughness of the Co-Cr alloy specimens. However, the metal-ceramic shear bond strength of Co-Cr alloys was found to be independent of the manufacturing process.

Methani, M. M., Revilla-Leon, M. and Zandinejad, A. (2020). “The potential of additive manufacturing technologies and their processing parameters for the fabrication of all-ceramic crowns: A review.” J Esthet Restor Dent 32(2): 182-192.

Full text of this article.

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to provide a review of the additive manufacturing technologies and the processing parameters that have been investigated for the fabrication of all ceramic crowns. OVERVIEW: Additive manufacturing has crept its way into the field of dentistry for the fabrication of resin and metal prosthesis. To evaluate the current status of additive manufacturing for the fabrication of all ceramic crowns, literature review was targeted to include publications pertaining to the fabrication of dental ceramics and all ceramic crowns. With respect to the additive manufacturing of dental ceramics, five technologies have been investigated to date: stereolithography, material extrusion, powder based fusion, direct inkjet printing, and binder jetting. The processing parameters and experimental outcomes were collated and described for each of the aforementioned technologies. CONCLUSION: Additive manufacturing has demonstrated promising experimental outcomes and corroborated to the fabrication all ceramic crowns. However, the technology is yet to witness a commercial breakthrough within this domain. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Additive manufacturing mitigates raw material wastage and tooling stresses that are associated with milling of ceramics. Continued research and development can lead to its approbation as an alternate technology for manufacturing all ceramic restorations.

Revilla-Leon, M., Methani, M. M., Morton, D. and Zandinejad, A. (2020). “Internal and marginal discrepancies associated with stereolithography (SLA) additively manufactured zirconia crowns.” J Prosthet Dent Jan 21. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Stereolithography (SLA) additive manufacturing (AM) technologies can be selected to fabricate zirconia crowns; however, the internal and marginal discrepancies associated with these new technologies remain unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the marginal and internal discrepancies of milled and AM zirconia crowns by using the silicone replica technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An implant custom abutment was manufactured and scanned by using a laboratory scanner (CARES Software; Straumann). An anatomic contour crown was digitally designed, and the standard tessellation language (STLC) file was obtained. The STLC file was splinted into 2 pieces, simulating the parts of the crown that would replace the enamel (STLG1 file) and dentin (STLG2 file) structures. Three groups were determined: anatomic contour zirconia milled (CNC group), AM anatomic contour zirconia (AM group), and AM splinted zirconia (SAM group). For the CNC group, the STLC file was used to manufacture milled (CARES zirconium-dioxide crown; Straumann) zirconia specimens. For the AM group, the STLC file was used to additively fabricate (CERAMAKER 900; 3DCeram Co) the zirconia (3DMix ZrO2 paste; 3DCeram Co) specimens. For the SAM group, the STLG2 file was selected to AM (CERAMAKER 900; 3DCeram Co) the zirconia (3DMix ZrO2 paste; 3DCeram Co) specimens. Ten specimens per group were manufactured. The silicone replica technique was used to measure the marginal and internal discrepancies. The cement gap was measured on images captured by using a digital microscope at x100 magnification. For the internal gap, 50 measurements were made for each specimen, and for the marginal gap, 25 measurements were made for each specimen. The normality test, Shapiro-Wilk test, was conducted. The results indicated that the distributions were not normal; therefore, nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis H and pairwise Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to analyze the data. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between marginal and internal discrepancies in all 3 groups. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in marginal and internal discrepancies among the groups. The CNC group had the least marginal and internal discrepancies compared with the AM and SAM groups. The SAM group had significantly lower values for marginal and internal discrepancies than the AM group. The AM group showed the highest marginal and internal discrepancies. The CNC group had a weak correlation coefficient of 0.13 (P=.046), the AM group had a moderate correlation coefficient of 0.32 (P<.001), and the SAM group had a nonsignificant correlation coefficient of 0.12 (P=.051). CONCLUSIONS: CNC and SAM groups had clinically acceptable marginal and internal discrepancies, while the AM group had a clinically unacceptable marginal and internal crown discrepancies. Furthermore, a weak correlation was encountered between the marginal and internal discrepancies measured in all groups.

Methani, M. M., M. Revilla-Leon and A. Zandinejad (2019). “The potential of additive manufacturing technologies and their processing parameters for the fabrication of all-ceramic crowns: A review.” J Esthet Restor Dent Nov 7. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to provide a review of the additive manufacturing technologies and the processing parameters that have been investigated for the fabrication of all ceramic crowns. OVERVIEW: Additive manufacturing has crept its way into the field of dentistry for the fabrication of resin and metal prosthesis. To evaluate the current status of additive manufacturing for the fabrication of all ceramic crowns, literature review was targeted to include publications pertaining to the fabrication of dental ceramics and all ceramic crowns. With respect to the additive manufacturing of dental ceramics, five technologies have been investigated to date: stereolithography, material extrusion, powder based fusion, direct inkjet printing, and binder jetting. The processing parameters and experimental outcomes were collated and described for each of the aforementioned technologies. CONCLUSION: Additive manufacturing has demonstrated promising experimental outcomes and corroborated to the fabrication all ceramic crowns. However, the technology is yet to witness a commercial breakthrough within this domain. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Additive manufacturing mitigates raw material wastage and tooling stresses that are associated with milling of ceramics. Continued research and development can lead to its approbation as an alternate technology for manufacturing all ceramic restorations.