The marginal discrepancy of lithium disilicate onlays: Computer-aided design versus press

Gudugunta, Leneena; Mynampati, Praffulla; Jeevan, Matada Basavarajaiah; Kumar, Sathiyavathi Mahendra; Anitha, A.; Tejavath, Sai Krishna

doi:10.4103/jcd.jcd_31_19

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lithium disilicate ceramic is generally superior to CAD/CAM polymer-based materials in terms of flexural strength, abrasion resistance, and marginal/material discolorations. 19,20,24,25,26 These results…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…CAD/CAM can be used to fabricate not only silicate ceramics (such as lithium disilicate) but also zirconia, polymer‐infiltrated ceramics, or various polymer‐based materials 19,20 . They can be used for various indications, including with manual veneering for superior esthetical outcomes 19,20 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19,20 They can be used for various indications, including with manual veneering for superior esthetical outcomes. 19,20 Indirect CAD/CAM resin composite materials exhibit higher edge stability than ceramics, permitting restorations with very thin margins. [21][22][23][24] Standardized industrial fabrication of the CAD/CAM blanks under high pressure and temperature result in more homogenous and more abrasion-resistant restorations than chairside restorations using direct composite resins.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pressable lithium disilicate ceramic versus CAD/CAM resin composite restorations in patients with moderate to severe tooth wear: Clinical observations up to 13 years

Edelhoff

Erdelt

Stawarczyk

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To report the long-term clinical survival and failure rates of single-tooth restorations made of pressable lithium disilicate ceramics (LS 2 ) and CAD/CAM resin composite (RC) by two separate clinical observations. Materials and methods: Twenty-one patients (12 female, nine male) were treated with 436 minimally invasive single-tooth restorations made of 274 pressed LS 2 (n = 12; posterior: monolithic IPS e.max Press; anterior: IPS e.max Ceram veneered, Ivoclar) or 162 milled from RC (n = 9; monolithic exp. CAD/CAM resin composite, Ivoclar). The mean age of patients was 44.1 ± 9.3 years and the mean observation time was 86.2 ± 13.5 months (7.7 ± 1.1 years), with 8.5 ± 2.7 years for LS2 and 6.7 ± 0.5 years for RC. All restorations were observed for technical/biological failures using the modified criteria of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS). Collected data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test (α < 0.025). Results:The 274 LS 2 restorations showed a survival of 100% and a total failure rate of 5.5%. The 162 RC restorations showed a survival of 100% and a total failure rate of 25.3%. RC restorations exhibited more material fractures (p = 0.020) and higher discoloration rates (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Pressed LS 2 single-tooth restorations showed lower long-term failure rates than restorations made of RC.Clinical significance: Despite the limitations of the clinical observations, single-tooth restorations of both materials can be recommended for permanent use in patients with severe tooth wear.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pressable lithium disilicate ceramic versus CAD/CAM resin composite restorations in patients with moderate to severe tooth wear: Clinical observations up to 13 years

Edelhoff

Erdelt

Stawarczyk

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were very few in vivo studies included [ 27 , 31 , 34 , 36 ], of which, only one was carried out as a randomised controlled trial with the lowest risk of bias [ 27 ]. The results from the studies using models rather than real teeth will inherently produce differing results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Scoping Review of Marginal and Internal Fit Accuracy of Lithium Disilicate Restorations

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess and compare the accuracy of the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate crowns and onlays fabricated by conventional and digital methods. Sources: An electronic search was carried out on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library between 2010 and 2021. Study selection: Seventeen studies published between 2014 & 2021 were included, of which thirteen were in vitro laboratory-based studies; three were in vivo clinical studies and one randomised controlled trial. Data: Twelve studies focused on the marginal fit, five focused on the marginal and internal fit. Five studies found that the marginal and internal fit of crowns were more accurate using digital techniques. Five studies noted that there was no difference using either technique and two noted that conventional methods had a more accurate marginal fit. Conclusion: Digital techniques were comparable to conventional methods in terms of accuracy although there was insufficient evidence to indicate that one technique was more accurate than the other with respect to Lithium Disilicate restorations. Clinical significance: Digital impressions are reliable and viable alternatives for clinicians compared to conventional impression techniques when restoring teeth with lithium disilicate restorations.

show abstract

“…compared the marginal fit between CAD-CAM and hot-press lithium disilicate crowns and concluded that the marginal fit of crowns fabricated by CAD-CAM technique was better than by pressed technique. [ 13 14 ] Therefore, in the current study CAD-CAM technique of fabrication was employed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of endocrowns using lithium disilicate and polyetheretherketone computer-aided design - computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials: An in vitro study

Godil¹,

Kazi²,

Wadwan³

et al. 2021

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the marginal and internal fit of endocrowns with different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials by measuring them with a stereomicroscope (μm). Materials and Methods: A mandibular first molar typodont tooth was prepared to receive an endocrown. The preparation was scanned using an extra-oral scanner. Endocrowns ( n = 20) were fabricated using lithium disilicate (IPS e. max CAD LT block; CEREC Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (breCAM. BioHPP ® ; Bredent, UK) using CAD-CAM technique. Marginal gap was evaluated using a stereomicroscope at the midpoint of all four surfaces (mid buccal, mid lingual, mid mesial, mid distal). This was followed by sectioning of the endocrowns in a sagittal plane along with the prepared tooth to evaluate the internal fit at four different points (A, B, C, D) using a stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance test. Results: Mean values of marginal gap of lithium disilicate and PEEK endocrowns are 56.6 ± 6.1 μm and 81.3 ± 10.1 μm, respectively. Mean value internal gaps of lithium disilicate and PEEK endocrowns are 158.2 ± 11.1 μm and 199.1 ± 13 μm, respectively. Results in the present study have shown that the marginal and internal fits of lithium disilicate endocrowns are superior to that of PEEK endocrowns. Conclusions: Based on the outcomes of this in vitro study, the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate endocrowns is better than PEEK endocrowns. The marginal gap clinically acceptable is <120 μm. The marginal gap values recorded in this study are within the acceptable range for both materials.

show abstract

The marginal discrepancy of lithium disilicate onlays: Computer-aided design versus press

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Pressable lithium disilicate ceramic versus CAD/CAM resin composite restorations in patients with moderate to severe tooth wear: Clinical observations up to 13 years

Pressable lithium disilicate ceramic versus CAD/CAM resin composite restorations in patients with moderate to severe tooth wear: Clinical observations up to 13 years

A Scoping Review of Marginal and Internal Fit Accuracy of Lithium Disilicate Restorations

Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of endocrowns using lithium disilicate and polyetheretherketone computer-aided design - computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials: An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About