Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.49(3) > 1034669

Huh, Kim, Kim, Kim, Lee, Kim, Jeon, and Shin: Marginal and internal fitness of three-unit zirconia cores fabricated using several CAD/CAM systems

Abstract

Purpose

This study was aimed to compare the margin and internal fitness of 3-unit zirconia bridge cores fabricated by several CAD/CAM systems using replica technique.

Materials and methods

Three unit-bridge models in which upper canine and upper second premolar were used as abutments and upper first premolar was missed, were fabricated. Fourty models were classified into 4 groups (Cerasys (Group C), Dentaim(Group D), KaVo Everest (Group K), LavaTM (Group L)), and zirconia cores were fabricated by each company. Sixteen points were measured on each abutment by replica technique. Statistical analysis was accomplished with two way ANOVA and Dunnett T3 (α =.05).

Results

In most systems, there was a larger gap on inter margin than outer margin. In the Group K, overall fitness was excellent, but the incisal gap was very large. In the Group C, marginal gap was significantly larger than Group K, but overall internal gap was uniform (P<.05). The axial gap was under 100 μ m in all system. The difference between internal and external gap was small on Group L and C. However, internal gap was significantly larger than external gap in Group D (P<.05). The fitness of canine was better than second premolar among abutments (P<.05).

Conclusion

The marginal and internal gap was within the clinically allowed range in all of the three systems. There was a larger gap on second premolar than canine on internal and marginal surface. In most systems, there was a larger gap on occlusal surface than axial surface. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2011;49:236-44)

REFERENCES

1.Bindle A., Mormann WH. Marginal and internal fit of allceramic CAD/CAM crown-coping on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabil. 2005. 32:441–7.
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 IS., 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.May KB., Russell MM., Razzoog ME., Lang BR. Precision of fit: the Procera AllCeram crown. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:394–404.
crossref
5.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.
6.Hertlein G., Hoscheler S., Frank S., Suttor D. Marginal fit of CAD/CAM manufactured all ceramic prosthesis. J Dent Res. 2001. 80:42–4.
7.Rekow ED. High-technology innovations-and limitations-for restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 1993. 37:513–24.
8.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.
9.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.
crossref
10.Gardner FM. Margins of complete crowns-literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 1982. 48:396–400.
crossref
11.Hung SH., Hung KS., Eick JD., Chappell RP. Marginal fit of porcelain-fused-to-metal and two types of ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 63:26–31.
crossref
12.Wang CJ., Millstein PL., Nathanson D. Effects of cement, cement space, marginal design, seating aid materials, and seating force on crown cementation. J Prosthet Dent. 1992. 67:786–90.
crossref
13.Molin M., Karlsson S. The fit of gold inlays and three ceramic inlay systems. A clinical and in vitro study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1993. 51:201–6.
crossref
14.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.
crossref
15.Huh JB., Park CG., Kim HY., Park CK., Shin SW. Evaluation using replica technique on the marginal and internal fitness of zirconia cores by several CAD/CAM systems. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2010. 48:135–42.
crossref
16.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.
crossref
17.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.
18.Koo JY., Lim JH., Cho IH. Marginal fidelity according to the margin types of all ceramic crowns. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 1997. 35:445–57.
19.Pera P., Gilodi S., Bassi F., Carossa S. In vitro marginal adaptation of alumina porcelain ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1994. 72:585–90.
crossref
20.Belser UC., MacEntee MI., Richter WA. Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent. 1985. 53:24–9.
crossref
21.Davis DR. Comparison of fit of two types of all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1988. 59:12–6.
crossref
22.Abbate MF., Tjan AH., Fox WM. Comparison of the marginal fit of various ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 61:527–31.
crossref
23.Wu JC., Wilson PR. Optimal cement space for resin luting cements. Int J Prosthodont. 1994. 7:209–15.
24.Brukl CE., Nicholson JW., Norling BK. Crown retention and seating on natural teeth with a resin cement. J Prosthet Dent. 1985. 53:618–22.
crossref
25.Yu JH., Kim YC., Kang DW. A study on the marginal fidelities and fracture strength of IPS Empress 2 ceramic crowns. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2000. 38:606–17.
26.Sorensen JA. A standardized method for determination of crown margin fidelity. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 64:18–24.
crossref
27.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.
28.Rahme HY., Tehini GE., Adib SM., Ardo AS., Rifai KT. In vitro evaluation of the "replica technique" in the measurement of the fit of Procera crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008. 9:25–32.

Fig. 1.
Master model for replication with titanium block: Used dentiform teeth with 1.0 mm deep chamfer margin and 12 degree axial wall.
jkap-49-236f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Replica models with titanium block. This was fabricated with CAD/CAM system (Addtech Co., Seoul, Korea), and replicated master models.
jkap-49-236f2.tif
Fig. 3.
The constant seating force (25 N) was maintained using a universal testing machine for 5 min.
jkap-49-236f3.tif
Fig. 4.
Captured figures after sectioning with bucco-lingual direction using “Replica technique” .
jkap-49-236f4.tif
Fig. 5.
Reference points to measure the thickness of fit checker.
jkap-49-236f5.tif
Fig. 6.
Mean values and SD at each point in canine bucco-lingual section.
jkap-49-236f6.tif
Fig. 7.
Mean values and SD at each point in canine mesio-distal section.
jkap-49-236f7.tif
Fig. 8.
Mean values and SD at each point in 2nd premolar bucco-lingual section.
jkap-49-236f8.tif
Fig. 9.
Mean values and SD at each point in 2nd premolar mesio-distal section.
jkap-49-236f9.tif
Fig. 10.
Estimated means of marginal gap in each position and system.
jkap-49-236f10.tif
Fig. 11.
Estimated means of internal gap in each position and system.
jkap-49-236f11.tif
Table 1.
Multiple Comparisons (Dunnett T3 test) in marginal fitness
  (I) System (J) System Mean Difference (I - J) Std. Error Sig.
Dunnett T3 Dentaim Kavo 40.1649 (∗) 4.74082 .000
    Cerasys 32.4200 (∗) 4.73398 .000
    Lava -8.3544 6.78347 .771
  Kavo Dentaim -40.1649 (∗) 4.74082 .000
    Cerasys -7.7449 (∗) 2.87712 .044
    Lava -48.5193 (∗) 5.64648 .000
  Cerasys Dentaim -32.4200 (∗) 4.73398 .000
    Kavo 7.7449 (∗) 2.87712 .044
    Lava -40.7744 (∗) 5.64073 .000
  Lava Dentaim 8.3544 6.78347 .771
    Kavo 48.5193 (∗) 5.64648 .000
    Cerasys 40.7744 (∗) 5.64073 .000

Based on observed means.

(∗) The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Table 2.
Multiple Comparisons (Dunnett T3 test) in internal fitness
  (I) System (J) System Mean Difference (I - J) Std. Error Sig.
Dunnett T3 Dentaim Kavo 24.2515 (∗) 7.29061 .006
    Cerasys 20.8351 (∗) 6.94980 .018
    Lava 12.378 7.94413 .534
  Kavo Dentaim -24.2515 (∗) 7.29061 .006
    Cerasys -3.4164 6.20659 .995
    Lava -11.8735 7.30283 .484
  Cerasys Dentaim -20.8351(∗) 6.94980 .018
    Kavo 3.4164 6.20659 .995
    Lava -8.4571 6.96261 .782
  Lava Dentaim -12.378 7.94413 .534
    Kavo 11.8735 7.30283 .484
    Cerasys 8.4571 6.96261 .782

Based on observed means.

(∗) The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

TOOLS
Similar articles