No abstract

The aim of this study was to qualitatively evaluate the marginal vertical fit along two different implant-abutment interfaces: (1) a standard abutment on an implant and (2) a computer-aided-design/computer-aided-machine (CAD/CAM) customized screw-retained crown on an implant. Four groups were compared: three customized screw-retained crowns with three different “tolerance” values (CAD-CAM 0, CAD-CAM +1, CAD-CAM −1) and a standard titanium abutment. Qualitative analysis was carried out using an optical microscope. Results showed a vertical gap significantly different from both CAD-CAM 0 and CAD-CAM −1, while no difference was found between standard abutment and CAD-CAM +1. The set tolerance in producing CAD/CAM screw-retained crowns plays a key role in the final fit.

No studies are available that evaluate the retention of disilicate crowns according to different cementation procedures. The purpose of this study was to measure the retention of lithium disilicate crowns cemented using two different cementation systems. Twenty extracted mandibular premolars were prepared. Anatomic crowns were waxed and hot pressed using lithium disilicate ceramic. Teeth were divided into two groups (n = 10): (1) self-curing luting composite and (2) glass-ionomer cement (GIC). After cementation, the crowns were embedded in acrylic resin block with a screw base. Each specimen was pulled along the path of insertion in Universal Testing Machine. Failure load in Newtons (N) and failure mode were recorded for each specimen. Failure mode was classified as decementation or fracture. Failure load data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Failure modes were compared using Pearson’s Chi-square test. Mean failure load was 306.6(±193.8) N for composite group and 94.7(±48.2) N for GIC group (p = 0.004). Disilicate crown cemented with luting composite most often failed by fracture; otherwise, crown cemented with glass-ionomer cement most often failed by decementation (p = 0.02). Disilicate full crown cemented with luting composite showed higher failure load compared with conventional cementation with glass-ionomer cement.

SummaryAim of this work was to qualitatively evaluate the interface between tooth, luting composite and lithium disilicate surface using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). An extracted restoration-free human molar was stored in physiological solution until it was embedded in an autopolimerysing acrylic resin. A standard preparation for overlay was completed and after preparation an anatomic overlay was waxed on the tooth and then hot pressed using lithium disilicate ceramic. After cementation the sample was dissected and the section was analysed using an Automatic Micromet (Remet s.a.s) and the section was analyzed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). SEM evaluation of the tooth showed the three layers seamlessly; by increasing the enlargement the interface did not change.

The purpose of this study is to define the accuracy of four intraoral scanners (IOS) through the analysis of digital impressions of a complete dental arch model. Eight metal inserts were placed on the model as reference points and then it was scanned with a laboratory scanner in order to obtain the reference model. Subsequently, the reference model was scanned with four IOS (Carestream 3600, CEREC Omnicam, True Definition Scanner, Trios 3Shape). Linear measurements were traced on an STL file between the chosen reference points and divided into four categories: three-element mesiodistal, five-element mesiodistal, diagonal, and contralateral measurements. The digital reference values for the measurements were then compared with the values obtained from the scans to analyze the accuracy of the IOS using ANOVA. There were no statistically significant differences between the measurements of the digital scans obtained with the four IOS systems for any of the measurement groups tested.