Casting and Mechanized Titanium Restorations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: New materials and methods for clinical dentistry are continuously being introduced. There is a growing interest in the use of titanium as a restorative material for several reasons: its relatively low cost, favorable physical properties and biocompatibility. However, titanium is technically more difficult to handle than conventional metal alloys. There are two fabrication methods for titanium restorations: casting and mechanized (a combination of machine duplication and spark erosion-Pro- -cera method). PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two fabrication methods used for titanium restorations and to make some recommendations on the indications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dental literature was reviewed including clinical and technique articles on the use of titanium in prosthodontic restorations. RESULT: The use of mechanized titanium has more restrictive indications than casting, but assures better marginal fit of the restorations. The bond strength of porcelain fused to titanium is questioned, because of the lower rigidity of titanium than conventional alloys and discrepancies in the thermal expansion coefficient between titanium and ceramic. Thus, low fusing ceramics tend to predominate today. The esthetic result varies. Furthermore titanium restorations require a qualified dental technician. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that titanium is a promising alternative for prosthodontic restorations. Several error sources associated with casting can be eliminated with mechanized titanium restorations. However, little information is availableon the clinical performance of titanium restorations. More clinical prospective studies are necessary before titanium can be recommended for general clinical use