Comparison of marginal fit between CAD-CAM and hot-press lithium disilicate crowns

Dolev, Eran; Bitterman, Yoli; Meirowitz, Avi

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.035

Cited by 77 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results in this study of no difference between the conventional and digital workflow on the marginal fit were similar to several reports for lithium disilicate, zirconia, and metal crowns . However, this was different from other reports, which documented the superiority of the conventional technique for the fit of single crowns for lithium disilicate, and metal, or the superiority of the digital technique for lithium disilicate, and metal crowns .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the Accuracy of Fit of Metal, Zirconia, and Lithium Disilicate Crowns Made from Different Manufacturing Techniques

Hamad

Quran

AlJalam

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To evaluate the accuracy of fit of metal, lithium disilicate, and zirconia crowns, which were produced using different manufacturing techniques. Materials and Methods: Ten patients in need of a molar crown were recruited. Eight crowns were fabricated for each patient: 2 zirconia, 3 lithium disilicate (e.max), and 3 metal-ceramic crowns using conventional, conventional/digital, and digital techniques. Marginal, axial, and occlusal gaps were measured using a replica technique. Replicas were sectioned mesiodistally and buccolingually and were observed under a stereomicroscope. A total of 32 measurements for each crown replica at 3 different points (12 marginal, 12 axial, and 8 occlusal) were performed. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. Results: Marginal means ranged from 116.39 ± 32.76 µm for the conventional metal-ceramic group to 147.56 ± 31.56 µm for the digital e.max group. The smallest axial gap was recorded for the digital zirconia group (76.19 ± 23.94 µm), while the largest axial gap was recorded for the conventional e.max (101.80 ± 19.81 µm) and conventional/digital metal-ceramic groups (101.80 ± 35.31 µm). The conventional e.max crowns had the smallest occlusal mean gap (185.59 ± 59.09 µm), while the digital e.max group had the largest occlusal mean gap (295.38 ± 67.80 µm). Type of crown had no significant effect on marginal (p = 0.07, f = 2.71), axial (p = 0.75, f = 0.29), or occlusal fit (p = 0.099, f = 2.4), while fabrication method had a significant effect on axial gap only (p = 0.169, f = 1.82, p = 0.003, f = 6.21, and p = 0.144, f = 2 for marginal, axial, and occlusal fit, respectively). Digital fabrication produced significantly smaller axial gaps than the conventional method (p = 0.02), and the conventional digital method (p = 0.005). Conclusions:The type of crown and method of manufacturing had no effect on the marginal and occlusal gap of single posterior crown, while the method of manufacturing had a significant effect on the axial gap. The digital method produced the smallest axial fit in comparison with the other methods, while the type of crown had no effect on the axial gap.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Lithium disilicate ceramic is a glass‐ceramic with improved strength. Similar to reports on zirconia, reports on the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns made from conventional and CAD/CAM techniques were not consistent …”

mentioning

confidence: 57%

Comparison of the Accuracy of Fit of Metal, Zirconia, and Lithium Disilicate Crowns Made from Different Manufacturing Techniques

Hamad

Quran

AlJalam

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… Multiple recent studies examined the marginal fit of ceramic restorations fabricated using digital impression systems. Many of these studies, compared the marginal fit using digital and conventional impressions and concluded that both protocols result in clinically acceptable marginal adaptation for the fabrication of indirect all ceramic dental restorations . Nonetheless, another area that require further investigation is the validity of various digital workflows currently being utilized for digital crown fabrication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Fit Evaluation of CAD/CAM All Ceramic Crowns Obtained by Two Digital Workflows: An In Vitro Study Using Micro‐CT Technology

Duqum

Brenes

Mendonça

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To evaluate the marginal fit of CAD/CAM all ceramic crowns made from lithium disilicate and zirconia using two different fabrication protocols (model and model-less). Materials and Methods: Forty anterior all ceramic restorations (20 lithium disilicate, 20 zirconia) were fabricated from digital impressions using a CEREC Bluecam scanner. Two different digital workflows were used: a fully digital model-less approach and a printed model digital approach. The crowns were cemented on the respective prepared typodont teeth and marginal gap was evaluated using Micro-CT. Each specimen was analyzed in sagittal and trans-axial orientations, allowing evaluation of the marginal fit (vertical and horizontal) on each surface. Logarithmic transformation was used with a significance of 0.05. After that a reliability analysis was performed by re-measuring four randomized selected images for each specimen and performing intraclass correlations to determine any systematic bias in the measurements. Results: Vertical measurements in the lingual, distal and mesial views had an estimated marginal gap ranging from 101.9 to 133.9 µm for lithium disilicate crowns and 126.4 to 165.4 µm for zirconia. No significant differences were found between model and model-less techniques. Conclusions: Both workflows are valid protocols for the fabrication of monolithic ceramic restorations. The use of a printed model did not improve the marginal fit of lithium disilicate or zirconia crowns. Both materials are also clinically acceptable, no matter which workflow was used to obtain the restoration.

show abstract

“…Therefore, many studies have focused on the marginal and internal fit parameters that affect prostheses prognosis [4,5,[11][12][13][14]. Currently, fixed prostheses produced with dental CAD/CAM systems have reported marginal fit values that are typically less than 100 µm, and marginal gap values below 100-120 µm have been reported to be clinically permissible in most studies [11,14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many previous studies have evaluated the marginal and internal fit of the crowns fabricated from lithium disilicate materials and verified their stability [5,6,11,15]. In addition, long-term clinical studies with these crowns have yielded promising results [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Trueness and Surface Microhardness on the Fitness of Ceramic Crowns

Lee

2020

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the fitness, surface microhardness, and trueness of crowns fabricated from three types of dental ceramic blocks (HASS Rosetta, IPS e.max CAD, and VITA Suprinity) and analyze the correlations between them. A crown was first designed in computer-aided design (CAD) software. To create a crown designed model (CDM), the design file was extracted from the CAD software, and a lithium disilicate block was processed from the file with a milling machine. To create a crown scanned model (CSM), the inside of the fabricated crown was digitized using a contact scanner. Using three-dimensional (3D) inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems), the CDM and CSM were then superimposed, and their 3D trueness was analyzed. To measure the surface microhardness of the blocks, the specimens were polished and subjected to the Vickers hardness test. The fitness of the fabricated crowns was evaluated by applying a modified silicone replica technique. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess the correlations between trueness, surface microhardness, and fitness. In addition, the significance of differences between the three types of dental ceramic blocks was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant differences in the trueness, surface microhardness, and marginal fit were observed between ceramic blocks of different types. There were also positive correlations between trueness, surface microhardness, marginal fit, and internal fit. While the marginal fit of crowns fabricated from each of the three types of ceramic blocks was in the clinically permitted range (<120 µm), there were differences in the trueness and surface microhardness, depending on the type of block. However, crowns fabricated from each of the three materials have surface microhardness that is clinically applicable.

show abstract

Comparison of marginal fit between CAD-CAM and hot-press lithium disilicate crowns

Cited by 77 publications

References 19 publications

Comparison of the Accuracy of Fit of Metal, Zirconia, and Lithium Disilicate Crowns Made from Different Manufacturing Techniques

Comparison of the Accuracy of Fit of Metal, Zirconia, and Lithium Disilicate Crowns Made from Different Manufacturing Techniques

Marginal Fit Evaluation of CAD/CAM All Ceramic Crowns Obtained by Two Digital Workflows: An In Vitro Study Using Micro‐CT Technology

Effects of Trueness and Surface Microhardness on the Fitness of Ceramic Crowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About