Does cad software affect the marginal and internal fit of milled full ceramic crowns?

Akat, Bora; Şentürk, Ayben; Ocak, Mert; Kılıçarslan, Mehmet Ali; Özcan, Mutlu

doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2022.vol36.0042

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found significant differences in the marginal gap between the Planmeca group (151.9 µm ± 93.1) compared to the other two groups, CEREC (25.6 µm ± 47.3) and KaVo (31.3 µm ± 65.5). In this study, although different IOS and CAD systems (CEREC ® SW 5.2.4; Dentsply Sirona and EXOCAD ® DentalCAD 2.2 Vallenta, Darmstadt, Germany) were used, no differences were found between the two systems, and the values for the Temp-bond group were similar (28.09 µm ± 3.06 and 28.94 µm ± 3.30) to those of the CEREC and KaVo CAD systems [34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

The Impact of Open versus Closed Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Systems on the Marginal Gap of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Single Crowns Evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscopy: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Shely,

Nissan,

Rosner

et al. 2024

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the impact of CAD/CAM closed systems and open systems on the marginal gap of monolithic zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) ceramic crowns, as both systems are used in everyday dentistry, both chair-side and laboratory. For the closed system, 20 plastic teeth were scanned by a Primescan intra-oral scanner (IOS), and for the open system, the same number of plastic teeth were scanned by Trios 4 IOS. For the closed system, CEREC software was used, and for the open system, EXOCAD software was used. All 40 ZLS crowns were grinded by the same four-axis machine and cemented with Temp-bond, followed by self-adhesive resin cement. For each type of cement, an evaluation of the marginal gap was conducted by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Before comparisons between the groups, a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed on the study variables showing a normal distribution (p > 0.05). Independent T tests (α = 0.05) and paired-sample T tests (α = 0.05) were used. The independent T test found no significant mean marginal gap differences in the zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns bonded with Temp-bond and scanned by Primescan (28.09 μm ± 3.06) compared to Trios 4 (28.94 μm ± 3.30) (p = 0.401), and there was no significant mean marginal gap differences in zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns bonded with self-adhesive resin cement (Gcem ONE) and scanned by Primescan (46.70 μm ± 3.80) compared to Trios 4 (47.79 μm ± 2.59) (p = 0.295). Paired-sample T tests showed significantly higher mean marginal gaps with Gcem ONE compared to Temp-bond for the total mean marginal gap when scanning with Primescan (p = 0.0005) or Trios 4 (p = 0.0005). In everyday dentistry, both closed systems (Primescan with Cerec) and open systems (Trios 4 with Exocad) can be used to achieve an acceptable (<120 µm) marginal gap for ZLS CELTRA® DUO single crowns. There is a significant difference between cementation with Temp-bond and Gcem ONE self-adhesive resin cement (p < 0.05).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

The Impact of Open versus Closed Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Systems on the Marginal Gap of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Single Crowns Evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscopy: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Shely,

Nissan,

Rosner

et al. 2024

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The disparities observed between linear analyses and volumetric analyses are attributed to variations in the intrinsic structures of the systems, which subsequently impact volumetric evaluations. When analyzing prosthodontic research, it is more clinically significant to interpret results using linear metrics [20,21]. To eliminate structural differences, the mean difference was calculated by comparing the placement of abutments using hand tightening and torque application with a wrench device on both the implant analog and the implant body.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Compatibility of Abutments Placed with Torque Wrench Device and Hand Tightening to Implant Bodies and Implant Analogs with Conical Connection

Akat,

Ocak,

Şentürk

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the connection of implant abutments to implant analogs and implant bodies has been evaluated separately, comparative evaluation of connections to implant analogs and implant bodies has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to identify whether torque applied during laboratory manufacturing and during restoration cementation affects the compatibility between the implant body-abutment and the implant analog-abutment, as well as to spot any structural differences. Three different implant system with internal conical connection (Bioinfinity, Dant, and Dentist) were used. For each group, straight abutments (n=20) were tightened to implant analogs (n=10) and implant bodies (n=10) with hand tightening and using torque wrench device. The fitting of componenets were evaluated for each group using linear and volumetric micro-CT analysis. For linear analysis, when the mean differences (difference between measurements of the linear distance of abutments during hand tightening and applying torque) values between implant analog and implant body were compared within groups, There was no statistically significant difference observed in all groups (p&gt; 0.05). Throughout the fabrication and clinical phases, it is recommended to tighten the abutments on the analogs with a torque wrench instrument to minimize the risk of prosthetic incompatibility.

show abstract

Impact of Cut-out-rescan and Data Exchange by Over-scanning Techniques on Marginal Fit of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Passos,

Musskopf,

Vasconcellos

2024

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Objective: Evaluate the impact of adjustment procedures — cut-out-rescan (COR) and data exchange by over-scanning (DEOS) techniques — through CAD/CAM software on the marginal fit outcome of ceramic crowns. Methods and Materials: Twenty-eight de-identified teeth were adapted in a mandibular typodont set. Tooth #19 was prepared for a lithium disilicate crown and seven groups, G0 to G6 (n=10), were created based on the rescanned areas (mesial and/or buccal) on the typodont using an intraoral scanner through COR or DEOS techniques. A digital workflow was used to design and mill 70 crowns according to the groups. Each crown was temporarily cemented on tooth #19 and scanned with micro-computed tomography to measure the marginal fit. The data were analyzed statistically by the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Mann-Whitney test to compare the groups pairwise as a post-hoc (α=0.05). Results: Statistically significant differences were found for vertical misfit (μm) between the groups for Marginal Gap Buccal (MGB) and Marginal Gap Mesial (MGM) (p=0.003 and p=0.029, respectively). No significant difference was found for Finish Line Buccal (FLB) and Finish Line Mesial (FLM) (p=0.062 and p=0.092, respectively). G3 (COR buccal and mesial) had the highest MGB (57.75 μm), statistically different from all other groups. G4 (DEOS buccal) (41.60 μm) was different from G6 (DEOS buccal and mesial) (44.21 μm) (p=0.023). For MGM, G0 (control) (53.96 μm) was different from G5 (DEOS mesial) (45.76 μm) and G6 (DEOS buccal and mesial) (48.56 vm) (p=0.013 and p=0.041, respectively) and G2 (COR mesial) (58.43 μm) was different from G5 (DEOS mesial) (45.76 μm) (p=0.016). Conclusions: Despite a statistically significant difference in certain groups for both techniques, COR and DEOS techniques are viable options for image editing during acquisition. Lithium disilicate crowns can be produced with satisfactory marginal gap values utilizing a chairside CAD/CAM system.

show abstract

Does cad software affect the marginal and internal fit of milled full ceramic crowns?

Cited by 4 publications

References 37 publications

The Impact of Open versus Closed Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Systems on the Marginal Gap of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Single Crowns Evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscopy: A Comparative In Vitro Study

The Impact of Open versus Closed Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Systems on the Marginal Gap of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Single Crowns Evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscopy: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Assessment of the Compatibility of Abutments Placed with Torque Wrench Device and Hand Tightening to Implant Bodies and Implant Analogs with Conical Connection

Impact of Cut-out-rescan and Data Exchange by Over-scanning Techniques on Marginal Fit of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About