Young-Gyun Song; In-Ho Cho; Jong-Hyuk Lee

doi:10.4047/jkap.2008.46.5.470

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.46(5) > 1034545

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Song, Cho, and Lee: The marginal fidelity of Procera® AllCeram alumina copings and crowns of patients

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2008;46(5):470-478.

Published online: NaN December 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2008.46.5.470

The marginal fidelity of Procera^® AllCeram alumina copings and crowns of patients

Young-Gyun Song, DDS¹, In-Ho Cho, MSD, DDS, PhD^2,, Jong-Hyuk Lee, MSD, DDS, PhD³

^¹Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea

^²Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea

^³Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea

Corresponding Author: In-Ho Cho Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, San 7-1, Shinboo-Dong, Cheonan, Choongnam, 330-716, Korea Tel.: +82 41 550 1971 E-mail: cho8511@dku.edu

Received 5 May 200826 May 2008 Accepted 29 August 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Statement of problem

Use of all-ceramic prostheses fabricated with CAD/CAM systems is increasing in the dentistry. Marginal fidelity in production of all-ceramic restoration has important clinical implications and is a key consideration issue in CAD/CAM production as well.

Purpose

The objective of this study was to analyse marginal fidelities of Procera^® Allceram Crown.

Material and methods

On 56 patients treated with Procera^® system Allceram Crown at Dankook Dental Hospital, marginal discrepancies of 101 abutments were measured by stereomicroscope at coping and final restoration stages. Paired t-test and one-way analysis of variance on marginal discrepancy data were conducted to determine the presence of significant differences between measurement and measuring point stages.

Results

Marginal discrepancies of final restoration (45.82 ± 30.84 ㎛) were lower than alumina coping (53.84 ± 38.83 ㎛). Furthermore, the differences were found to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level. Anterior marginal discrepancies were lower than posterior marginal discrepancies, but they were not statistically significant. Lingual marginal discrepancies were higher than other measurement sites, and the differences were found to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Conclusion

Within the conditions of this study, marginal fidelities of Procera^® Allceram Crown were acceptable, and after porcelain build-up, marginal fitness improved over alumina coping. More careful scanning is needed for better results. (J Kor Acad Prosthodont 2008;46:470-8).

Keywords: CAD/CAM, Procera^®, Allceram crown, Alumina coping, Marginal fidelity, Stereomicroscope

REFERENCES

1.Godacre CJ., Campagni WV., Aquilino SA. Tooth preparations for complete crowns: An art form based on scientific principles. J Prosthet Dent. 2001. 85:363–76.

2.Brecker SC. Porcelain baked to gold; a new medium in prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1956. 6:801–10.

3.Goodacre CJ., Van Roekel NB., Dykema RW., Ullmann RB. The collarless metal-ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent. 1977. 38:615–22.

4.Lehner CR., Mannchen R., Scharer P. Variable reduced metal support for collarless metal ceramic crowns: A new model for strength evaluation. Int J Prosthodont. 1995. 8:337–45.

5.Mclean JW., Jeansonne EE., Bruggers H., Lynn DB. A new metal-ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent. 1978. 40:273–87.

6.Rizkalla AS., Jones DW. Mechanical properties of commercial high strength ceramic core materials. Dent Mater. 2004. 20:207–12.

7.Campbell SD., Pelletier LB., Pober RL., Giordano RA. Dimensional and formation analysis of a restorative ceramic and how it works. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 74:332–40.

8.Sturdevant JR., Bayne SC., Heymann HO. Margin gap size of ceramic inlays using second-generation CAD/CAM equipment. J Esthet Dent. 1999. 11:206–14.

9.Besimo C., Jeger C., Guggenheim R. Marginal adaptation of titanium frameworks produced by CAD/CAM techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 1997. 10:541–6.

10.Denissen HW., Van der Zel JM., Van Waas MAJ. Measurement of the margins of partial-coverage tooth preparation for CAD/CAM. Int J Prosthodont. 1999. 12:395–400.

11.Rekow ED. High-technology innovations and limitations for restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 1993. 37:513–24.

12.Persson M., Andersson M., Bergman B. The accuracy of a high-precision digitizer for CAD/CAM of crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 74:223–9.

13.Kim IS., Kang DW. Marginal adaptation of the conical inner crown fabrication with CAD/CAM. J Kor Acad Prosthodont. 2002. 40:30–41.

14.Van Roekel NB. Electrical discharge machining in Dentistry. Int J Prosthodont. 1992. 5:114–21.

15.Valderrama S., Van Roekel N., Andersson M., Goodacre CJ., Munoz CA. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of titanium and gold-platinum-palladium metal ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1995. 8:29–37.

16.Gardener FM. Margins of complete crowns-literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 1982. 48:396–400.

17.Sulaiman F., Chai J., Jameson LM., Wozniak WT. A comparison of marginal fit of In-ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera Crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1997. 10:478–84.

18.Denissen H., Dozic A., Van der Zel J., van Waas M. Marginal fit and short-term clinical performance of porcelain-veneered CICERO, CEREC, and Procera on-lays. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 84:506–13.

19.Kim DK., Cho IH., Lim JH., Lim HS. On the marginal fidelity of all-ceramic core using CAD/CAM system. J Kor Acad Prosthodont. 2003. 41:20–34.

20.Shin SY. Procera system: a review of literature. J Kor Acad Stomatog Func Occ. 2006. 22:309–15.

21.Andersson M., Razzoog ME., Ode ′n A., Hegenbarth EA., Lang BR. Procera: a new way to achieve an all-ceramic crown. Quintessence Int. 1998. 29:285–96.

22.Holmes JR., Bayne SC., Holland GA., Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 62:405–8.

23.Kydd WL., Nicholls JI., Harrington G., Freeman M. Marginal leakage of cast gold crowns luted with zinc phosphate cement: an in vivo study. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 75:9–13.

24.Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay casting. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 13:297–305.

25.Jenkins CB., Phillips RW. An evaluation of five inlay investing techniques employed with different types of wax patterns. J Prosthet Dent. 1971. 25:211–20.

26.Mclean JW. Polycarboxylate cements. Five years' experience in general practice. Br Dent J. 1972. 132:9–15.

27.Andersson M., Carlsson L., Persson M., Bergman B. Accuracy of machine milling and spark erosion with a CAD/CAM system. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 76:187–93.

28.Mormann WH., Schug J. Grinding precision and accuracy of fit of CEREC2 CAD-CAM inlays. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997. 128:47–53.

29.Bindl A., Windisch S., Mormann WH. Full-ceramic CAD/CIM anterior crowns and copings. Int J Comput Dent. 1999. 2:97–111.

30.Persson M., Andersson M., Bergman B. The accuracy of a high-precision digitizer for CAD/CAM of Crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 74:223–9.

31.Small BW. Product review: all-ceramic system. Gen Dent. 1998. 46:446–50.

Fig. 1.

Procera scanner Mod 50 (NobelBiocare, Go¨teborg, Sweden) used for this study.

Fig. 2.

Margin creation of abutment using Procera system.

Fig. 3.

Margin adjustment of abutment using Procera system.

Fig. 4.

Design of alumina coping with Procera system.

Fig. 5.

Master die and alumina coping.

Fig. 6.

Stereo microscope SZ-PT^® (Olympus Co., Shinjuku, Japan).

Fig. 7.

Schematic view of measuring points.

Fig. 8.

Master die and Allceram crown.

Fig. 9.

Stereomicroscopic view of marginal discrepancy.

Fig. 10.

Comparison of total mean marginal discrepancies at coping stage and after build-up stage.

Fig. 11.

Comparison of marginal discrepancies at different measuring points.

Fig. 12.

Comparison of marginal discrepancies according to measuring points.

Table I.

Mean and standard deviation (SD) of total marginal discrepancies at coping stage and after build-up stage unit: ㎛

	Mean	SD
Coping	53.84	38.83
After porcelain build-up	45.82	30.84

Table II.

Mean and standard deviation (SD) and statistical analysis of marginal discrepancies at different measuring points unit: ㎛

Source of variation	Coping stage		After build-up stage		P value
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	P value
Buccal	51.98	30.03	42.77	25.10	0.000
Lingual	54.36	37.78	44.95	32.24	0.000
Mesial	54.16	43.80	46.83	33.19	0.001
Distal	54.85	42.70	48.71	32.27	0.003

Table III.

Mean and standard deviation (SD) and statistical analysis of marginal discrepancies at anterior and posterior abutments unit: ㎛

Source of variation	Anterior abutment		Posterior abutment		P value
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	P value
Buccal	41.49	24.67	39.81	19.18	0.348
Lingual	67.64	50.22	71.11	41.47	0.153
Mesial	44.73	34.69	48.70	28.42	0.768
Distal	42.36	20.15	49.26	31.31	0.126

Table IV.

Result of multiple range test for marginal discrepancies according to measuring points

Measurement point	Buccal	Lingual
Buccal
Lingual	∗
Mesial		∗
Distal		∗

^∗ Denotes pair of group significantly different at the 0.05 level

TOOLS

Similar articles