# Accuracy and Fit of Three-Unit Dental Restorations Fabricated from 3D-Printed Resins and CAD/CAM Milling Materials: A Micro-CT Study

## TL;DR

This study compares the accuracy and fit of dental restorations made using 3D printing and milling methods.

## Contribution

The study introduces a micro-CT evaluation of the fit and accuracy of 3D-printed dental restorations compared to milled ones.

## Key findings

- Milled restorations showed fewer surface deviations compared to 3D-printed ones.
- 3D-1 printed restorations had comparable internal fit to milled restorations.
- Milled restorations provided better marginal adaptation than 3D-printed ones.

## Abstract

(1) Purpose: To compare the fabrication accuracy, internal fit, and marginal adaptation of three-unit definitive resin fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) produced by subtractive milling and additive manufacturing. (2) Materials and Methods: A typodont mandible was prepared for a three-unit FDP, with full crown preparations on teeth mandibular left canine and mandibular left second premolar featuring 1 mm chamfer finish lines. The FDP was designed with a 16 mm2 connector and a 100 µm cement gap. Two milling materials (Ambarino High-Class, IPS e.max CAD) and two experimental 3D printing hybrid resins (3D-1, 3D-2) were used. All restorations were scanned using an intraoral scanner and compared to the original STL using reverse engineering software for surface trueness and deviation analysis. The internal fit was evaluated using the triple-scan method, while marginal fit was assessed via micro-CT imaging. Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests (α = 0.05). (3) Results: Milled groups demonstrated a lower prevalence of external, marginal, and overall surface deviations (p < 0.001), while 3D-1 exhibited comparable deviations within the internal region with M-E (p = 0.067). Milled groups had average gap values that were similar to 3D-1 (p > 0.08), but significantly lower than 3D-2 (p < 0.002). In marginal adaptation evaluated by micro-CT, the M-A and M-E groups provided significantly lower gaps, while the 3D-1 and 3D-2 groups exhibited wider marginal and axial gaps. (4) Conclusions: These results indicate that while milling remains a more reliable manufacturing method for achieving external and marginal precision, position 3D-1 is a compelling, chairside alternative to milling.