Marginal and internal fitness of three-unit zirconia cores fabricated using several CAD/CAM systems

Jung-Bo Huh; U Sic Kim; Ha-Young Kim; Jong-Eun Kim; Jeong-Yeol Lee; Young-Su Kim; Young-Chan Jeon; Sang-Wan Shin

doi:10.4047/jkap.2011.49.3.236

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

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2011;49(3):236-244.

Published online: 18 December 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2011.49.3.236

Marginal and internal fitness of three-unit zirconia cores fabricated using several CAD/CAM systems

Jung-Bo Huh, DDS, MSD¹, U Sic Kim, MSD, DDS, PhD, Ha-Young Kim, DDS, MSD², Jong-Eun Kim, DDS², Jeong-Yeol Lee, MSD, DDS, PhD², Young-Su Kim, DDS, MPH², Young-Chan Jeon, MSD, DDS, PhD¹, Sang-Wan Shin, DDS, MSD, PhD^2,^∗

^¹Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan

^²Institute for Clinical Dental Research, Korea University, Seoul, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Sang-Wan Shin Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, Korea University, Guro Hospital, 97 Guro-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul, 152-703, Korea +82 2 2626 1922: e-mail, swshin@korea.ac.kr

Received 10 June 20115 July 2011 Accepted 6 July 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

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), Lava^TM (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)

Keywords: Marginal fitness, Internal fitness, CAD/CAM, Zirconia core

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

21.Davis DR. Comparison of fit of two types of all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1988. 59:12–6.

22.Abbate MF., Tjan AH., Fox WM. Comparison of the marginal fit of various ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 61:527–31.

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.

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.

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.

Fig. 2.

Replica models with titanium block. This was fabricated with CAD/CAM system (Addtech Co., Seoul, Korea), and replicated master models.

Fig. 3.

The constant seating force (25 N) was maintained using a universal testing machine for 5 min.

Fig. 4.

Captured figures after sectioning with bucco-lingual direction using “Replica technique” .

Fig. 5.

Reference points to measure the thickness of fit checker.

Fig. 6.

Mean values and SD at each point in canine bucco-lingual section.

Fig. 7.

Mean values and SD at each point in canine mesio-distal section.

Fig. 8.

Mean values and SD at each point in 2^nd premolar bucco-lingual section.

Fig. 9.

Mean values and SD at each point in 2^nd premolar mesio-distal section.

Fig. 10.

Estimated means of marginal gap in each position and system.

Fig. 11.

Estimated means of internal gap in each position and system.

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