Evaluation of marginal fit of 2 CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown systems and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crown

Ji, Min-Kyung; Park, Ji-Hee; Park, Sang-Won; Yun, Kwi-Dug; Oh, Gye-Jeong; Lim, Hyun-Pil

doi:10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.271

Cited by 32 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…And to be increased before and after the sintering had an impact on the precision shrinkage error. Some errors may have occurred in the diameter sizes, milling axis of the design, milling bur using the software, and additional processing steps and affected the precision 53. In addition, the small gap values of the PC should not be overly emphasized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe purposes of this study were to evaluate the marginal and internal gaps, and the potential clinical applications of three different methods of dental prostheses fabrication, and to compare the prostheses prepared using the silicone replica technique (SRT) and those prepared using the three-dimensional superimposition analysis (3DSA).MATERIALS AND METHODSFive Pekkton, lithium disilicate, and zirconia crowns were each manufactured and tested using both the SRT and the two-dimensional section of the 3DSA. The data were analyzed with the nonparametric version of a two-way analysis of variance using rank-transformed values and the Tukey's post-hoc test (α = .05).RESULTSSignificant differences were observed between the fabrication methods in the marginal gap (P < .010), deep chamfer (P < .001), axial wall (P < .001), and occlusal area (P < .001). A significant difference in the occlusal area was found between the two measurement methods (P < .030), whereas no significant differences were found in the marginal gap (P > .350), deep chamfer (P > .719), and axial wall (P > .150). As the 3DSA method is three-dimensional, it allows for the measurement of arbitrary points.CONCLUSIONAll of the three fabrication methods are valid for measuring clinical objectives because they produced prostheses within the clinically acceptable range. Furthermore, a three-dimensional superimposition analysis verification method such as the silicone replica technique is also applicable in clinical settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The crowns were seated with a rocking motion 53 and maximum index finger pressure (180-degree distal pad press) of a young adult male (50 N) 54 as in the clinical situation. 48 During setting, a static standardized force (40 N) directed onto the central fossa of the crown parallel to the vertical axis of the tooth was applied on each specimen for 5 minutes. 17,53 The excess cement was removed, and after setting, the VMD was measured again in the same manner (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24,26,47 However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, reports regarding the accuracy of fit for monolithic zirconia crowns at different stages of fabrication are limited. 48,49 The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different stages of fabrication and cementation on the vertical marginal discrepancy (VMD) of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia crowns. The null hypothesis was that no differences would be found in VMD values obtained after different stages of fabrication, before and after glazing of the crown and after cementation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of fabrication stages and cementation on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia crowns

Kale

Yılmaz

Şeker

et al. 2017

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Considering the 3D shape of crowns and variances in thickness, curvatures, and finish line shapes, the crown might not undergo uniform shrinkage in all dimensions and that may affect the marginal fitting of full contour zirconia (FCZ). There is a lack of consistent evidence regarding the effects of different preparation designs on marginal fit of FCZ . No studies have investigated the effects of different sintering protocols on marginal adaptation of monolithic zirconia crowns, and there is no evidence to support that using a fast sintering protocol results in equivalent marginal fit compared to the standard sintering protocol.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Discrepancies of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns: The Influence of Preparation Designs and Sintering Techniques

Ahmed

Abdallah

McCullagh

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The marginal fit is an essential component for the clinical success of prosthodontic restorations. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different abutment finish line widths and crown thicknesses on the marginal fit of zirconia crowns fabricated using either standard or fast sintering protocols. Materials and Methods Six titanium abutments were fabricated for receiving zirconia molar crowns. Crowns were designed virtually and milled from partially sintered zirconia blanks and divided into 12 groups (n = 10/group). Crowns in groups 1 to 6 were sintered by standard sintering, while those in groups 7 to 12 were sintered by fast sintering. Groups were further categorized according to abutment finish line and crown thickness: G1/G7 (0.5 mm chamfer, 0.8 mm thick); G2/G8 (0.5 mm chamfer, 1.5 mm thick); G3/G9 (1.0 mm chamfer, 0.8 mm thick); G4/10 (1.0 mm chamfer, 1.5 mm thick); G5/G11 (1.2 mm chamfer, 0.8 mm thick); G6/G12 (1.2 mm chamfer, 1.5 mm thick). The marginal gaps were assessed at 8 locations using digital microscopy. The linear mixed effect model analysis was performed at a significance level of 0.05. Results All vertical marginal gaps were within the clinically acceptable range (∼11‐52 μm). G8 (FS, 0.5 mm chamfer, 1.5 mm thick) demonstrated the largest gaps (47.95 μm, 95% CI: 44.57‐51.23), whereas G3 (SS, 1.0 mm chamfer, 0.8 thick) had the smallest marginal gap (14.43 μm, 95% CI: 11.15‐17.71). A linear mixed effect models showed significant differences for the interaction between finish line × crown thickness × sintering (F = 18.96, p < 0.001). The lingual surfaces showed the largest gaps in both sintering protocols, while the mesial and mesiobuccal surfaces demonstrated the smallest gaps. Conclusions There was a significant interaction between finish line widths, crown thickness, and sintering protocol on the marginal gaps in both sintering protocols; 1.0 mm finish line preparations with either 0.8 mm or 1.5 mm occlusal reduction had better marginal fit in both sintering protocols compared to 0.5 mm or 1.2 mm finish lines. Smaller marginal discrepancies were observed for standard sintering crowns with a 0.5 mm finish line and 1.5 mm occlusal reduction. Conservative occlusal reduction should be accompanied with a 1.2 mm finish line to obtain better marginal fit for full‐contoured zirconia crowns.

show abstract

Evaluation of marginal fit of 2 CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown systems and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crown

Cited by 32 publications

References 26 publications

Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis

Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis

Effect of fabrication stages and cementation on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia crowns

Marginal Discrepancies of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns: The Influence of Preparation Designs and Sintering Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About