This experimental study aimed to compare the internal fit (marginal fit and internal discrepancy) of metal crowns fabricated by traditional casting and digital methods (computer numerically controlled (CNC) milling and three-dimensional [3D] printing). Thirty standard master abutment models were fabricated using a 3D printing technique with digital software. Metal crowns were fabricated by traditional casting, CNC milling, and 3D printing. The silicon replica method was used to measure the marginal and internal fit. A thin layer of low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane material was placed inside each crown and on the die (like a seat) until the material was set. Replicas were examined at four reference points under a microscope: the central pit (M1), cusp tip (M2), axial wall (M3), and margin (M4). The measured data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to verify statistical significance, which was set at p < 0.05. In the traditional casting group, the minimum distance measured was at M3 (90.68 ± 14.4 μm) and the maximum distance measured was at M1 (145.12 ± 22 μm). In the milling group, the minimum distance measured was at M3 (71.85 ± 23.69 μm) and the maximum distance measured was at M1 (108.68 ± 10.52 μm). In the 3D printing group, the minimum distance measured was at M3 (100.59 ± 9.26 μm) and the maximum distance measured was at M1 (122.33 ± 7.66 μm). The mean discrepancy for the traditional casting, CNC milling, and 3D printing groups was 120.20, 92.15, and 111.85 μm, respectively, showing significant differences (P < 0.05). All three methods of metal crown fabrication, that is, traditional casting, CNC milling, and 3D printing, had values within the clinically acceptable range. The marginal and internal fit of the crown was far superior in the CNC milling method.
Comparison of the internal fit of metal crowns fabricated by traditional casting, computer numerical control milling, and three-dimensional printing
