Marginal fidelity of zirconia core using MAD/MAM system

Dong-Rim Kang; June-Sung Shim; Hong-Suk Moon; Keun-Woo Lee

doi:10.4047/jkap.2010.48.1.1

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.48(1) > 1034614

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kang, Shim, Moon, and Lee: Marginal fidelity of zirconia core using MAD/MAM system

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48(1):1-7.

Published online: 18 December 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.1.1

Marginal fidelity of zirconia core using MAD/MAM system

Dong-Rim Kang, DDS, June-Sung Shim, DDS, PhD, Hong-Suk Moon, DDS, PhD, Keun-Woo Lee, DDS, PhD^∗

Department of Dentisry, Graduate School, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Keun-Woo Lee Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, 250 Seongsanno, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea +82 2 2228 3158: e-mail, kwlee@yuhs.ac

Received 15 October 200930 December 2009 Accepted 15 January 2010

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

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fit of zirconia core using MAD/MAM system comparing to that of conventional metal-ceramic and CAD/CAM system.

Materials and methods

Duplicating the prepared resin tooth, 50 improved stone dies were fabricated. These dies are classified as a group of 5 to create the core. The groups were composed of metal-ceramic, Cercon^®, Ceramill^®, Rainbow^TM, and Zirkonzhan^®. Each core was cemented to stone die, and then, absolute marginal discrepancy was measured with microscope at a magnification of ×50. Statistical analysis was done with one-way ANOVA test and Tukey's HSD test.

Results

The mean absolute marginal discrepancy for metal-ceramic was 51.97 ± 23.38 μm, for Cercon^® was 62.16 ± 25.88 μm, for Ceramill^® was 67.64 ± 40.38 μm, for Rainbow^TM was 125.07 ± 42.19 μm, and for Zirkonzhan^® was 105 ± 44.61 μm.

Conclusion

1. Fit of margin was identified as in the order of metal-ceramic, Cercon^®, Ceramill^®, Zirkonzhan^®, and Rainbow^TM. 2. Absolute marginal discrepancy of the zirconia core that designed by MAD/MAM system had significant differences in order of Ceramill^®, Zirkonzhan^®, and Rainbow^TM. 3. The mean absolute marginal discrepancy between Cercon^® and Ceramill^® did not show significant differences. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48:1-7)

Keywords: Zirconia, core, MAD/MAM, Marginal discrepancy

REFERENCES

1.Seghi RR., Sorensen JA. Relative flexural strength of six new ceramic materials. Int J Prosthodont. 1995. 8:239–46.

2.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.

3.Yang JH., Yeo YS., Lee SH., Han JS., Lee JB. Marginal fit of Celay/In-ceram, conventional In-ceram and Empress 2 All-ceramic single crowns. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2002. 40:131–9.

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

5.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.

6.Gardner FM. Margins of complete crowns—literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 1982. 48:396–400.

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

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

9.Carter JM., Sorensen SE., Johnson RR., Teitelbaum RL., Levine MS. Punch shear testing of extracted vital and endodontically treated teeth. J Biomech. 1983. 16:841–8.

10.Strawn SE., White JM., Marshall GW., Gee L., Goodis HE., Marshall SJ. Spectroscopic changes in human dentine exposed to various storage solutions-short term. J Dent. 1996. 24:417–23.

11.Sorensen JA. A standardized method for determination of crown margin fidelity. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 64:18–24.

12.Leong D., Chai J., Lautenschlager E., Gilbert J. Marginal fit of machine-milled titanium and cast titanium single crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1994. 7:440–7.

13.Moon BH., Yang JH., Lee SH., Chung HY. A study on the marginal fit of all-ceramic crown using ccd camera. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 1998. 36:273–92.

14.Groten M., Axmann D,Pro ¨bster L., Weber H. Determination of the minimum number of marginal gap measurements required for practical in-vitro testing. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 83:40–9.

15.Gassino G., Barone Monfrin S., Scanu M., Spina G., Preti G. Marginal adaptation of fixed prosthodontics: a new in vitro 360-degree external examination procedure. Int J Prosthodont. 2004. 17:218–23.

16.Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent. 1966. 16:297–305.

17.Palomo F., Peden J. Periodontal considerations of restorative procedures. J Prosthet Dent. 1976. 36:387–94.

18.Molin MK., Karlsson SL., Kristiansen MS. Influence of film thickness on joint bend strength of a ceramic/resin composite joint. Dent Mater. 1996. 12:245–9.

19.McLean JW., von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971. 131:107–11.

20.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.

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

22.Shin HS., Kim SG. Comparison of marginal fit before and after porcelain build-up of two kinds of CAD/CAM zirconia all-ceramic restorations. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2008. 46:529–34.

23.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 onlays. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 84:506–13.

24.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.

Fig. 1.

Observation of marginal discrepancy using microscope (magnification × 50). C, core; D, die.

Fig. 2.

Means and standard deviation of marginal gap in each system (unit : μ m).

Fig. 3.

Casting misfit terminology - cited from the study of Holmes et al. (1989).

Table I.

Category of core material

Group	System
Metal-ceramic	Goldenian^® P-86 (Shinhung Inc., Seoul, South Korea)
CAD/CAM zirconia	Cercon^® (Dentsply International Inc., York, Pennsylvania,USA)
MAD/MAM zirconia	Ceramill^® (AmannGirrbach GmbH, Pforzheim, Germany)
MAD/MAM zirconia	Rainbow^TM (Dentium, Co. Inc., Seoul, South Korea)
MAD/MAM zirconia	Zirkonzhan^® (Zirkonzhan GmbH, Gais, Italy)

Table II.

Means and standard deviations of marginal gap (unit : μ m)

System	Measuring points	Mean (SD)
Metal-ceramic	500	51.97 (23.38)^a
Cercon^®	500	62.16 (25.88)^b
Ceramill^®	500	67.64 (40.38)^b
Rainbow^TM	500	125.07 (42.19)^d
Zirkonzhan^®	500	105.02 (44.61)^c

^∗ Means followed by distinct lower case letters are significantly different at α = .05.

Table III.

One-way ANOVA test

Source	Sum of squares	DF	Mean squares	F	P
Model	1942920.7	4	485730.167	367.024	0
Error	3301956.7	2495	1323.43
Corrected Total	5244877.4	2499

TOOLS

Similar articles