PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
Marginal fit is one of the important components for the successful prosthodontic restoration. Poor fitting margin of the restoration causes hypersensitivity, secondary caries, and plaque accumulation, which later result in prosthodontic failure. CAD/CAM zirconia all-ceramic restorations, such as LAVA® (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN) and EVEREST® (KaVo Dental GmbH, Biberach, Germany) systems were recently introduced in Korea. It is clinically meaningful to evaluate the changes of the marginal fit of the CAD/CAM zirconia systems before and after build-up. The purposes of this study are to compare the marginal fit of the two CAD/CAM all-ceramic systems with that of the ceramometal restoration, before and after porcelain build-up
Material and methods
A maxillary first premolar dentiform tooth was prepared with 2.0 mm occlusal reduction, 1.0 mm axial reduction, chamfer margin, and 6 degree taperness in the axial wall. The prepared dentiform die was duplicated into the metal abutment die. The metal die was placed in the dental study model, and the full arch impressions of the model were made. Twenty four copings of 3 groups which were LAVA®, EVEREST®, and ceramometal restorations were fabricated. Each coping was cemented on the metal die with color-mixed Fit-checker II® (GC Cor., Tokyo, Japan). The marginal opening of each coping was measured with Microhiscope® system (HIROX KH-1000 ING-Plus, Seoul, Korea. X300 magnification). After porcelain build-up, the marginal openings of LAVA®, EVEREST®,and ceramometal restorations were also evaluated in the same method. Statistical analysis was done with paired t-test and one-way ANOVA test.
Results
In coping states, the mean marginal opening for EVEREST® restorations was 52.00 ± 11.94 ㎛, for LAVA® restorations 56.97 ± 10.00 ㎛, and for ceramometal restorations 97.38 ± 18.54 ㎛. After porcelain build-up, the mean marginal opening for EVEREST® restorations was 61.69 ± 19.33 ㎛, for LAVA® restorations 70.81 ± 12.99 ㎛, and for ceramometal restorations 115.25 ± 23.86 ㎛.
Conclusion
1. LAVA® and EVEREST® restorations in comparison with ceramometal restorations showed better marginal fit, which had significant differences (P < 0.05) in coping state and also after porcelain build-up . 2. The mean marginal opening values between LAVA® and EVEREST® restorations did not showed significant differences after porcelain build-up as well as in coping state (P > .05). 3. EVEREST®, LAVA® and ceramometal restorations showed a little increased marginal opening after porcelain build-up, but did not show any statistical significance (P > .05). (J Kor Acad Prosthodont 2008;46:528-34).
REFERENCES
1.Shillingburg HT Jr., Hobo S,Fisher DW. Preparation design and margin distortion in porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations. Prosthet Dent. 1973. 29:276–84.
2.May KB., Russell MM., Razzoog ME., Lang BR. Precision of fit: the procera Allceram crown. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:394–404.
3.Tinschert J., Natt G., Mautsch W., Spiekermann H., Anusavice KJ. Marginal fit of alumina- and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent. 2001. 26:367–74.
4.Hertlein G., Hoscheler S., Frank S., Suttor D. Marginal fit of CAD/CAM manufactured all ceramic prosthesis. J Dent Res. 2001. 80:42–4.
5.Schweiger M. Holand W. Frank M. IPS Empress 2: A new pressable high-strength glass-ceramic for esthetic all-ceramic restorations. Quintessence Dent Tech. 1999. 22:143–51.
6.Naert I., Van der Donck A., Beckers L. Precision of fit and clinical evaluation of all-ceramic full restorations followed between 0.5 and 5 years. J Oral Rehabil. 2005. 32:51–7.
7.Sulaiman F., Chai J., Jameson LM., Wozniak WT. A comparison of marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPSEmpress, and Procera Crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1997. 10:478–84.
8.Denissen H., Dozi A., van der Zel J., van Waas M. Marginal fit and short-term clinical performanceof porcelain-veneered CICERO, CEREC and Procera onlays. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 84:506–13.
9.Mormann WH., Schug J. Grinding precision and accuracy of fit of CEREC 2 CAD/CAM inlays. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997. 128:47–53.
10.Kim DK., Cho IH., Lim JH., Lim HS. On the marginal fidelity of all-ceramic core using CAD/CAM system. J Korean Acad of Prosthodont. 2003. 41:20–34.
11.Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay casting. J Prosthet Dent. 1966. 16:297–305.
12.Belser UC., MacEntee MI., Richter WA. Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prothet Dent. 1985. 53:24–9.
13.Bindl A., Mormann WH. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabil. 2005. 32:441–7.
14.Reich S., Wichmann M., Nkenke E., Proeschel P. Clinical fit of all-ceramic three-unit fixed partial dentures, generated with three different CAD/CAM systems. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005. 113:174–9.
15.Wolfart S., Bohlsen F., Wegner SM., Kern M. A preliminary prospective evaluation of all-ceramic crown-retained and inlay-retained fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2005. 18:497–505.
XML Download