Objective:To investigate the accuracy of pure titanium and cobalt-chromium alloy frameworks fabricated using the additive manufacturing (AM) of selective laser melting technology (SLM) for the mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses and the maxillary removable partial denture (RPD), and to provide a reference for clinical application of SLM pure titanium frameworks.Methods:One edentulous mandibular model with implants and screw fixed abutments at bilateral canines and the first molars was selected and used as the mandibular full arch implant-supported model. At the same time, a Kennedy class Ⅰ maxillary dentition defect model was selected. The digital models were obtained by scanning the dental models, and the metal frameworks of the mandibular full arch implant-supported denture and the maxillary RPD (design model) were designed using the 3 Shape software. Meanwhile, 12 mandibular frameworks in the cobalt-chromium alloy and the pure titanium (6 in each group were treated with heat treatment, while the other 6 were not treated), and 7 maxillary frameworks in the cobalt-chromium alloy and the pure titanium were respectively made by SLM with the improved dual-laser metal printer. The axial direction of the printing powder accumulation was taken as the Z-axis. During the design process, the software (3Shape Dental System 2018) automatically generated the X-axis and Y-axis, X axis was the sagittal axis of the dental model and Y axis was the coronal axis of the dental model. The deviation of the interface center of the abutment of the digital model of the mandibular frameworks from the design model in the X, Y and Z axes was analyzed. As for the trueness of the mandibular framework, the larger the deviation data was, the worse the trueness was. The deviation of the whole maxillary framework and 7 measuring points (palatal plate center point and bilateral occlusal rests, I bars, proximal plates) were analyzed. The fitness of the whole maxillary framework to the design model was expressed by root mean square (RMS) of the deviation data, and the fitness of measuring points was expressed by the mean±standard deviation of the data. The trueness differences of each group before and after heat treatment of the mandibular framework and the fitness of the maxillary framework were compared.Results:The cobalt-chromium alloy frameworks showed lower trueness on the X, Y, Z-axes [(96.3±12.1), (86.3±11.4), (61.2±13.2) μm] than did the pure Ti frameworks [(82.3±11.2), (72.2±10.2), (51.2±11.6) μm] by SLM, and the heat treatment could reduce the discrepancy between the SLM frameworks and STL models, for pure titanium frameworks [(62.4±11.3), (55.2±13.2), (41.3±10.8) μm] and for cobalt-chromium alloy [(84.5±10.5), (72.3±11.2), (54.2±11.6) μm]. For the thin RPD major frameworks, pure titanium had better fitness [(121.3±17.0) μm] than cobalt-chromium alloy [(174.0±18.3) μm] by SLM, and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.05). Conclusions:Pure titanium frameworks fabricated by SLM additive manufacturing technology exhibited better fitness and trueness than did the Co-Cr frameworks after heat treatment respectively, and this satisfied the requirements of implant-supported fixed prostheses and RPD major metal frameworks.

Objective To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the bonding strength between highly translucent zirconia and veneering porcelain and to provide a research basis for improving the zirconium porcelain bond strength between zirconium and ceramic material.Methods Thirty cylindrical zirconia blocks with 10-mm diameter and 10-mm height were prepared and divided into four groups (n=7), labeled as control group (C), sandblasting group (S), bonding group (B), and sandblasting and bonding group (SB). The surface morphology of zirconia before and after sandblasting was observed in the remaining two specimens. Group C was veneered (2 mm in height and 5 mm in diameter) with porcelain powder by layering after grinding. Group S was sandblasted after grinding. Group B was veneered with a thin layer of porcelain powder as bond coating. Group SB was sandblasted and veneered with a thin layer of porcelain powder. After sintering, the shear specimens were embedded, and a shear bond strength test was conducted. Statistical analysis was conducted to analyze the data. Fracture surface analysis was also performed to determine the failure modes by stereomicroscopy.Results The bonding strength of group C was 21.86 ± 3.18 MPa. For group S, it was 22.12 ± 3.06 MPa. For group B, it was 19.19 ± 1.46 MPa. Finally, for group SB, it was 27.76 ± 1.95 MPa. There was no significant difference in shear strength between group C, group S and group B. There was a significant difference in shear strength between each group and group SB (P < 0.05). Under a stereomicroscope, the observed fracture modes of each group were mainly mixed failure.Conclusion Sandblasting cannot significantly increase the bonding strength between zirconia and veneering porcelain. Veneering with a thin layer of porcelain powder as the bond coating has no obvious effect on the bonding strength. Sandblasting and veneering with a thin layer of porcelain powder as a bond coating can significantly improve the bonding strength between zirconia and veneering porcelain.