Abstract
Purpose
Unpredictable shrinkage of zirconia during sintering process causes discrepancy. Therefore, there have been attempts to reduce discrepancy by milling zirconia after sintering. However, due to the hardness of sintered zirconia, milling takes longer time, causes damage to the machine and causes chip formation. With customized zirconia block using the mean dimension of prepared natural dentition, it is expected to overcome these shortcomings.
Materials and methods
The mean dimension of prepared natural dentition was analyzed as STL file after scanning of prepared teeth treated at SNUDH. The transverse, frontal and sagittal planes were set using Mimics and Photoshop. 3D volume was projected on each plane, and the outer line was measured through external tangent line, and the inner line was measured through inflection point of tangent line.
Results
The mean height of prepared incisal (N = 57) is 6.60 ± 1.05 mm, mesiodistal length is 2.98 ± 0.73 mm, buccolingual length is 2.04 ± 0.73 mm. The mean height of prepared premolar (N = 15) is 5.37 ± 1.49 mm, mesiodistal length is 4.10 ± 1.78 mm, buccolingual length is 5.86 ± 1.55 mm. And the mean height of prepared molar (N = 13) is 5.11 ± 1.29 mm, mesiodistal length is 6.80 ± 1.18 mm, buccolingual length is 7.34 ± 1.40 mm.
REFERENCES
1.Giordano RA. Dental ceramic restorative systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1996. 17:779–82. 784-6 passim; quiz 794.
2.Campbell SD. A comparative strength study of metal ceramic and all-ceramic esthetic materials: modulus of rupture. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 62:476–9.
3.Seghi RR., Sorensen JA. Relative flexural strength of six new ceramic materials. Int J Prosthodont. 1995. 8:239–46.
4.Kelly JR. Dental ceramics: current thinking and trends. Dent Clin North Am. 2004. 48(viii):513–30.
5.Kang DW. Fixed prosthodontics. 1st ed.DanhanNarae Publishing: Seoul;2012. p. 330.
6.Okutan M., Heydecke G., Butz F., Strub JR. Fracture load and marginal fit of shrinkage-free ZrSiO4 all-ceramic crowns after chewing simulation. J Oral Rehabil. 2006. 33:827–32.
7.Hjerppe J., Vallittu PK., Fröberg K., Lassila LV. Effect of sintering time on biaxial strength of zirconium dioxide. Dent Mater. 2009. 25:166–71.
8.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.
9.Bolton WA. The clinical application of a tooth size analysis. Am J Orthod. 1962. 48:504–29.
10.Kim EJ., Hwang HS. Reproducibility and accuracy of tooth size measurements obtained by the use of computer. Korean J Orthod. 1999. 29:563–73.
11.Sim EJ., Hwang HS., Moon JD. A study on the error of tooth size measurements. Korean J Orthod. 1999. 29:491–502.
12.Kim DS., Kim YJ., Choi JH., Han JH. A study of Korean norm about tooth size and ratio in Korean adults with normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod. 2001. 31:505–15.
13.Lee SP. Dental anatomy. 1st ed.DanhanNarae Publishing: Seoul;2009. p. 46.
Table 1.
Tooth number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crown height | 10.5 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 7.5 | 7.0 |
Mesiodistal length | 8.5 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 10.5 | 9.5 |
Buccolingual length | 7.0 | 6.5 | 8.0 | 9.5 | 9.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 |