Statement of problem. Accurate marginal and internal fit of dental restorations are essential for their long-term success. The fit of zirconia restorations prepared using digital scan systems has not been fully evaluated.Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated using direct and indirect digital scans.Material and methods. In a maxillary model, the left first premolar and first molar were prepared to receive 3-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses. Conventional impressions were made using stock trays and 2-step putty/wash polyvinyl siloxane material and were scanned using laboratory scanner (Conventional Impression-Laboratory scanner [CIL] group). The impressions were then poured, and the stone casts were scanned (Dental Cast-Laboratory scanner [DCL] group). Digital scans were made using TRIOS (TRIOS Intraoral scanner [TRI] group) and CS3600 (CS3600 Intraoral scanner [CSI] group) scanners (n=10). Zirconia copings were designed and milled from presintered blocks and subsequently sintered. Marginal, mid-axial, axio-occlusal, and mid-occlusal discrepancies were measured using the silicone replica technique with stereomicroscopy at ×50 magnification. The data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA (a=.01).Results. The ANOVA revealed significant differences among the studied groups in terms of all studied characteristics (P.01). Marginal gap was significantly higher in the DCL group (106 ±45 mm) compared with all other groups (P.01). However, no significant differences were observed in marginal gap between the TRI (60 ±15 mm) and CSI (55 ±13 mm) groups (P>.01). Internal gap in the mid-occlusal and axio-occlusal regions were significantly higher in the CIL (238 ±92 mm and 227 ±95 mm) and DCL (248 ±71 mm and 216 ±68 mm) groups than those recorded in the TRI (104 ±27 mm and 126 ±31 mm) and CSI (128 ±16 mm and 147 ±28 mm) groups (P.01). Internal discrepancies in the mid-axial position were similar between the TRI (70 ±15 mm) and CSI (72 ±23 mm) groups (P>.01), but these values were significantly lower than those recorded in the CIL (88 ±31 mm) and DCL (85 ±30 mm) groups (P.01). Conclusions.Within the limitations of this study, zirconia frameworks in the TRI and CSI groups had lower marginal and internal gaps compared with those in the DCL and CIL groups. Marginal gap in all groups was within a clinically acceptable range. (J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:105-12)

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of different surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of bonding between resin cement and lithia or zirconia-based ceramics using an in vitro study. Materials and Methods: Three zirconia ceramic blocks (IPS e.max ZirCAD) and three lithium disilicate ceramic blocks (IPS e.max CAD) were sintered and duplicated in resin composite. The zirconia specimens underwent various treatments (n = 1): (i) Sandblast + primer (ZiSa); (ii) sandblast + laser irradiation + primer (ZiSaLa); or (iii) laser irradiation + primer (ZiLa). The lithium disilicate specimens also underwent various treatments: (i) sandblast + HF + silane (LiSaE); (ii) sandblast + silane (LiSa); or (iii) sandblast + laser irradiation + silane (LiSaLa). The ceramic-composite blocks were cemented with resin cement and cut to produce bars with approx. 1 mm 2 bonding areas. The specimens were thermocycled, and bond strength tests were performed in a universal testing machine. The fracture type was determined by observing the fractured surface under a stereomicroscope. The mean bond strengths of the specimens were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Duncan's tests (α = 0.05). Results: Mean comparison of the μTBS showed no significant difference between LiSaE and LiSa (p > 0.05), but significant differences between LiSaE and other groups (p ࣘ 0.01). No significant differences were found between the ZiSaLa and ZiSa groups (p > 0.05). The modes of failure in all groups were mostly adhesive (57% to 80%). The mean bond strengths in laser-irradiated ceramics were significantly lower than those from other surface treatments. All ZiLa specimens debonded before testing (pretest failure). Conclusions: Lithium disilicate ceramic surface treated with a combination of sandblasting and silane application provided a bond strength comparable to that provided by sandblasting in combination with acid etching and applying silane. Groups treated with laser irradiation had significantly lower bond strengths than other groups.Increasing esthetic demands have resulted in full ceramic restorations receiving considerable attention in contemporary cosmetic dentistry. The popularity of these restorations is increasing, due to their desirable esthetics and metal-free nature.

No abstract

No abstract

Treatment with Er:YAG laser prior to silane application can be as effective as HF etching. Heat treatment of silane by CO or Er:YAG lasers does not improve the bond strength between feldspathic porcelain and composite resin.