A study on the marginal fit of CAD/CAM 3-unit bridges

Ki-Hong Lee; In-Sung Yeo; Sung-Hun Kim; Jung-Suk Han; Jai-Bong Lee; Jae-Ho Yang

doi:10.4047/jkap.2011.49.2.101

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.49(2) > 1034651

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Yeo, Kim, Han, Lee, and Yang: A study on the marginal fit of CAD/CAM 3-unit bridges

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2011;49(2):101-105.

Published online: 18 December 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2011.49.2.101

A study on the marginal fit of CAD/CAM 3-unit bridges

Ki-Hong Lee, MSD, DDS, In-Sung Yeo, MSD, DDS, PhD, Sung-Hun Kim, DDS, PhD, Jung-Suk Han, MSD, DDS, PhD, Jai-Bong Lee, MSD, DDS, PhD, Jae-Ho Yang, MSD, DDS, PhD^∗,

Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Jae-Ho Yang Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University 28, Yongon-dong, Chongro-gu, Seoul 110-749, Korea +82 2 2072 3393: e-mail, jhoyang@snu.ac.kr

Received 4 October 201014 February 2011 Accepted 11 March 2011

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 assess the marginal fit of three-unit bridges produced using LAVA CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) system and conventional PFG in vitro.

Materials and methods

#11, 13 resin teeth were prepared on dentiform, then duplicated. Twenty resin models were fabricated, ten for PFG 3-unit bridges and ten for LAVA 3-unit bridges. Each bridge was cemented on the resin model. Marginal discrepancy was measured with stereoscopic microscope (Nikon DS-Fi 1, Nikon, Japan) at a magnification of ×75. Independent t-test was done for the statistical analysis.

Results

The mean marginal discrepancy values and standard deviations of the PFG bridges was 97.1 ± 18.7 ㎛ for incisors, 76.6 ± 21.8 ㎛ for canines; that of the LAVA bridges was 90.4 ± 26.7 ㎛ for incisor, 110.2 ± 30.2 ㎛ for canines. The mean marginal discrepancy between PFG and LAVA for incisor did not show significant difference (P>.05). But for canine, the mean marginal discrepancy of PFG bridges was smaller than that of LAVA bridges (P<.05).

Conclusion

The LAVA CAD/CAM 3-unit bridges and the PFG 3-unit bridges showed clinically acceptable marginal discrepancy. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2011;49:101-5)

Keywords: CAD/CAM, LAVA, PFG, Marginal fit

REFERENCES

1.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.

2.Pro¨bster L. Four year clinical study of glass-infiltrated, sintered alumina crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 1996. 23:147–51.

3.Ode′n A., Andersson M., Krystek-Ondracek I., Magnusson D. Five-year clinical evaluation of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:450–6.

4.Odman P., Andersson B. Procera AllCeram crowns followed for 5 to 10.5 years: a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 2001. 14:504–9.

5.Sailer I., Fehe′r A., Filser F., Gauckler LJ., Lu ¨thy H., Ha¨mmerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2007. 20:383–8.

6.Tinschert J., Natt G., Mautsch W., Augthun M., Spiekermann H. Fracture resistance of lithium disilicate-, alumina-, and zirconia-based three-unit fixed partial dentures: a laboratory study. Int J Prosthodont. 2001. 14:231–8.

7.Filser F., Kocher P., Weibel F., Lu¨thy H., Scha¨rer P., Gauckler LJ. Reliability and strength of all-ceramic dental restorations fabricated by direct ceramic machining (DCM). Int J Comput Dent. 2001. 4:89–106.

8.Raigrodski AJ., Chiche GJ., Potiket N., Hochstedler JL., Mohamed SE., Billiot S., Mercante DE. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2006. 96:237–44.

9.Piwowarczyk A., Ottl P., Lauer HC., Kuretzky T. A clinical report and overview of scientific studies and clinical procedures conducted on the 3M ESPE Lava All-Ceramic System. J Prosthodont. 2005. 14:39–45.

10.Suttor D., Bunke K., Hoescheler S., Hauptmann H., Hertlein G. LA-VA—the system for all-ceramic ZrO2 crown and bridge frameworks. Int J Comput Dent. 2001. 4:195–206.

11.Goldman M., Laosonthorn P., White RR. Microleakage-full crowns and the dental pulp. J Endod. 1992. 18:473–5.

12.Valderhaug J., Birkeland JM. Periodontal conditions in patients 5 years following insertion of fixed prostheses. Pocket depth and loss of attachment. J Oral Rehabil. 1976. 3:237–43.

13.Valderhaug J., Heloe LA. Oral hygiene in a group of supervised patients with fixed prostheses. J Periodontol. 1977. 48:221–4.

14.Lang NP., Kiel RA., Anderhalden K. Clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival restorations with overhanging or clinically perfect margins. J Clin Periodontol. 1983. 10:563–78.

15.Felton DA., Kanoy BE., Bayne SC., Wirthman GP. Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent. 1991. 65:357–64.

16.Jacobs MS., Windeler AS. An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent. 1991. 65:436–42.

17.Reports of councils and bureau: revised Americal National Standard Institute American Dental Association (ANSI-ADA) specification no.8 for zinc-phosphate cement. J Am Dent Assoc. 1978. 96:121.

18.Ostlund LE. Cavity design and mathematics: their effect on gaps at the margins of cast restorations. Oper Dent. 1985. 10:122–37.

19.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.

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

21.Gulker I. Margins. N Y State Dent J. 1985. 51:213–5. 217.

22.Moldovan O., Rudolph H., Quaas S., Bornemann G., Luthardt RG. Internal and external fit of CAM-made zirconia bridge frameworks-a pilot study. Dtsch Zahna^¨rztl Z. 2006. 61:38–42.

23.Bindl A., Mo¨rmann WH. Fit of all-ceramic posterior fixed partial denture frameworks in vitro. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007. 27:567–75.

24.Romeo E., Iorio M., Storelli S., Camandona M., Abati S. Marginal adaptation of full-coverage CAD/CAM restorations: in vitro study using a non-destructive method. Minerva Stomatol. 2009. 58:61–72.

25.Kohorst P., Brinkmann H., Li J., Borchers L., Stiesch M. Marginal accuracy of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated using different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing systems. Eur J Oral Sci. 2009. 117:319–25.

26.Cavalcanti AN., Foxton RM., Watson TF., Oliveira MT., Giannini M., Marchi GM. Y-TZP ceramics: key concepts for clinical application. Oper Dent. 2009. 34:344–51.

27.Mizrahi B. The anterior all-ceramic crown: a rationale for the choice of ceramic and cement. Br Dent J. 2008. 205:251–5.

28.Kunii J., Hotta Y., Tamaki Y., Ozawa A., Kobayashi Y., Fujishima A., Miyazaki T., Fujiwara T. Effect of sintering on the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia frameworks. Dent Mater J. 2007. 26:820–6.

Fig. 1.

Prepared resin teeth embedded in stone (labial view).

Fig. 2.

Prepared resin teeth embedded in stone (incisal view).

Fig. 3.

Resin models.

Fig. 4.

LAVA and PFG bridges.

Table 1.

Mean values and standard deviations of marginal fit in each groups (㎛

	LAVA incisor	LAVA canine	PFG incisor	PFG canin
Mean	90.4	110.2	97.1	76.6
SD	26.7	30.2	18.7	21.8

Table 2.

Independent t-test

		t-test for Equality of Means
		t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
FPDIN	Equal variences assumed	-0.651	18	.523
	Equal variences not assumed	-0.651	16.096	.524
FPDCA	Equal variences assumed	2.854	18	.011
	Equal variences not assumed	2.854	16.39	.011

TOOLS

Similar articles