In vitro evaluation of marginal discrepancy of monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated with different CAD-CAM systems

Hamza, Tamer; Sherif, Rana

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.011

Cited by 61 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be attributed to much weaker ceramic veneer and the weak bond between the veneer and core, which may lower the fracture resistance of the definitive restoration. These findings are in agreement with previous studies, which stated that the mechanical strength of bilayered zirconia is limited to the weak feldspathic veneer …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…The introduction of yttria‐stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline (Y‐TZP)‐based restorations addresses the problem of low tensile strength. In addition to the material's excellent esthetics and tissue tolerance compared with metal‐ceramic restorations, its transformational toughening property provides high flexure strength (up to 1200 MPa) and fracture toughness (6 to 9 MPa.m ½ ) . However, because of the opaque nature of zirconia, veneering has been done with a more translucent feldspathic porcelain to achieve the desired esthetics .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass‐Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia‐Based Restorations

Hamza

Sherif

2017

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass‐Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia‐Based Restorations

Hamza

Sherif

2017

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As expected for a composite material, the properties are intermediate between those of ceramics and particle-filled resins. 60,61,63 The elastic modulus of these materials is in the range of 30 GPa, which is half of that reported for conventional veneering ceramics but closer to what is usually reported for dentin (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). 58,63 Typical ceramic materials have a higher elastic modulus values than PICN 64 .…”

Section: Polymer Infiltrated Ceramic Network (Picns)mentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Fortunately, all brands showed acceptable marginal discrepancy n, with the most advanced fiveaxis milling systems being superior to others. 18 Another important issue regarding the use of monolithic zirconia for dental restorations is the ageing phenomenon, since these restorations are loaded in direct contact with the oral environment. Laboratory studies have evaluated the formation of the monoclinic crystalline phase and the flexural strength of different monolithic zirconia after ageing.…”

Section: Monolithic Zirconia Restorationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of computerized systems for the production of dental restorations associated to the development of novel microstructures for ceramic materials has caused an important change in the clinical workflow for dentists and technicians, as well as in the treatment options offered to patients. New microstructures have also been developed by the industry in order to offer ceramic and composite materials with optimized properties, i.e., good mechanical properties, appropriate wear behavior and acceptable aesthetic characteristics. The objective of this literature review is to discuss the main advantages and disadvantages of the new ceramic systems and processing methods. The manuscript is divided in five parts: I) monolithic zirconia restorations; II) multilayered dental prostheses; III) new glass-ceramics; IV) polymer infiltrated ceramics; and V) novel processing technologies. Dental ceramics and processing technologies have evolved significantly in the past ten years, with most of the evolution being related to new microstructures and CAD-CAM methods. In addition, a trend towards the use of monolithic restorations has changed the way clinicians produce all-ceramic dental prostheses, since the more aesthetic multilayered restorations unfortunately are more prone to chipping or delamination. Composite materials processed via CAD-CAM have become an interesting option, as they have intermediate properties between ceramics and polymers and are more easily milled and polished.

show abstract

“…Considering complete digital workflow on natural teeth including the digital manufacturing process, the fabrication of lithium disilicate monolithic crowns in centralized milling production displayed accurate results with various impression systems compared to conventional protocols (Ng et al, ; Sailer, Benic, Fehmer, Hammerle, & Muhlemann, ). The performance of monolithic yttria‐stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Zi) polycrystal crowns has been widely described in the literature in terms of resistance and fit for both natural teeth and implant restorations (Almeida e Silva et al, ; Freire, Gonzalo, Lopez‐Suarez, & Suarez, ; Hamza & Sherif, ; Kapos & Evans, ; Sulaiman, Abdulmajeed, Donovan, Cooper, & Walter, ; Syrek et al, ). However, esthetic properties of monolithic, full‐contour Zi crowns were poorly investigated when compared to Zi copings veneered with feldspathic ceramic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw‐retained single‐implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient‐centered outcomes

Delize

Bouhy

Lambert

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this intrasubject clinical study was to measure and compare prosthodontic and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the fabrication of implant‐supported, all‐ceramic single crowns with a full digital workflow and a conventional workflow. Materials and methods Thirty‐one patients were subjected to first a digital (test group) and then a conventional impression (control group) at the same visit. From the intraoral optical scanner (IOS), a screw‐retained, monolithic crown was delivered according to a complete digital workflow (no cast), whereas a veneered crown on a zirconia (Zi) frame was provided as a control treatment. Both crowns were assessed during the clinical stages of try‐in. Prosthodontic outcomes (contact points, occlusion, PROMs, and esthetic results using the white esthetic score [WES]) were assessed. Results Occlusion and interproximal contacts showed comparable results for the two workflows (p = 0.37 and p = 0.36, respectively), whereas the global WES was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the control group. Patient satisfaction scores, using visual analog scales (VAS), were significantly better for IOS than for conventional impressions (p = 0.0098). On the contrary, patients’ perception of the esthetic outcomes showed significantly higher value (p < 0.0001) in the control group. Conclusions Both workflows allowed the delivery of ceramic crowns within two appointments. The clinical fit was acceptable in both groups. A better esthetic outcome, in both patients’ and clinicians’ opinions, was found in the control group. PROMs showed higher satisfaction with the IOS.

show abstract

In vitro evaluation of marginal discrepancy of monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated with different CAD-CAM systems

Cited by 61 publications

References 26 publications

Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass‐Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia‐Based Restorations

Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass‐Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia‐Based Restorations

Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods

Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw‐retained single‐implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient‐centered outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About