Effect of virtual cement gap settings on the marginal fit of cemented resin-ceramic crowns on implant abutments

Sultan, Sherif; Hegazy, Mostafa; Shakal, Mahmoud; Magdy, Sherif

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.014

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 3D scanner (Ceramill Map 600, Amman Girrbach) was used to record the digital impressions of the prepared teeth, and STL files of the prepared tooth were generated to fabricate the ‘all ceramic’ crowns. The software's default settings were used to define a virtual die spacer thickness setting of 50 μm, 9 and the extent of the die spacer was kept 2 mm short of the margins.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital assessment of marginal accuracy in ceramic crowns fabricated with different marginal finish line configurations

Faruqi

Ganji

Bandela

et al. 2021

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To digitally evaluate the marginal adaptation of different types of all-ceramic crowns on two different marginal configurations such as Shoulder and Chamfer of the prepared teeth. Methods:The marginal fit of the crown specimens on the model of the prepared teeth were assessed using the dual scan replica technique. Two plastic teeth were prepared; one having a Shoulder finishing line (A), while the other with a Chamfer finish line (B). Three types of different all-ceramic crowns, layered zirconia, monolithic zirconia, and pressed lithium disilicate, were fabricated for each prepared tooth (A) and (B). Measurements for assessing the marginal discrepancy were done on four designated points on the mesial, distal, buccal, and palatal surface of the superimposed image. Results:The average marginal gap was the largest in the layered zirconia group, followed by monolithic zirconia, while pressed lithium disilicate crowns showed the least marginal gaps. Crowns with Chamfer finish lines were better fitting (less marginal gap) than the shoulder finish lines across all the groups.Conclusions: Chamfer finish lines produced better fitting restorations, and heatpressed lithium disilicate crowns showed better adaptation at the margins than both layered zirconia and monolithic zirconia.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital assessment of marginal accuracy in ceramic crowns fabricated with different marginal finish line configurations

Faruqi

Ganji

Bandela

et al. 2021

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This includes McLean et al, who also suggested that 120 µm is the maximum clinical discrepancy that can be tolerated [10]. Some investigations attribute this conclusion to the decrease in facture resistance [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Cement is an essential factor in determining the success of the restorations [8]. Many studies have advocated that a marginal gap less than 120 µm is clinically acceptable [8][9][10][11]. This includes McLean et al, who also suggested that 120 µm is the maximum clinical discrepancy that can be tolerated [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Marginal Gap Evaluation Using Various Self-Adhesive Resin Cements by SEM

Shely,

Nissan,

Lugassy

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of three different self-adhesive resin cements on the marginal gap of full monolithic zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) single crowns. Methods: We divided forty-five typodont teeth, fully prepared for full monolithic crowns, into three groups (fifteen each) for the use of three different self-adhesive resin cements. We created a fourth control group (Temp-bond) by taking five teeth from each group before cementation with self-adhesive resin cements. All forty-five abutments were scanned using Primescan (an intra-oral scanner (IOS)), followed by digital design and grinding of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) crowns with a four-axis machine. We first cemented the crowns of the control group (Temp-bond) and evaluated the marginal gap using a scanning electronic microscope (SEM). After removing the crowns from the abutments, we cemented the crowns for each group using a different self-adhesive resin cement and observed them under the SEM to evaluate the marginal gap. We used a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which found no normal distribution in the study variables (p < 0.05), followed by Mann-Whitney tests (α = .05). Results: The total mean marginal gap of the control group (24.67 ± 4.43 µm) was significantly lower compared to the self-adhesive resin cements groups (p < 0.0005). The total mean marginal gap of the G-cem ONE group (50.48 ± 6.38 µm) was significantly lower compared to the TheraCem group (p < 0.026) and RelyX U200 group (P < 0.008). The total mean marginal gap of the TheraCem group (66.28 ± 7.23 µm) was significantly higher than the G-cem ONE group (p < 0.026) but showed no significant difference with the RelyX U200 group (70.07 ± 10.12 µm, p > 0.110). Conclusions: All four groups showed a clinically acceptable marginal gap (< 120 microns). Although all three groups of self-adhesive resin cements demonstrated a significant increase in the marginal gap compared to Temp-bond group, they were within the limits of clinical acceptability. Regarding the marginal gap, in everyday dentistry it is recommended to use G-cem ONE self-adhesive resin cement for ZLS single crowns.

show abstract

“…Cement is an essential factor in determining the success of the restorations [ 8 ]. Many studies have advocated that a marginal gap less than 120 µm is clinically acceptable, and the achievable range may vary depending on factors like the restoration material and finish line configuration [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. This includes McLean et al, who also suggested that 120 µm is the maximum clinical discrepancy that can be tolerated [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This includes McLean et al, who also suggested that 120 µm is the maximum clinical discrepancy that can be tolerated [ 10 ]. Some investigations attribute this conclusion to the decrease in facture resistance [ 11 ]. On the other hand, Contrepois et.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Self-Adhesive Resin Cements and Their Influence on the Marginal Adaptation of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Single Crowns: An In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscope Evaluation

Shely,

Nissan,

Lugassy

et al. 2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In everyday dentistry, monolithic single crowns can be cemented with self-adhesive resin cements. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate how the marginal adaptation of full monolithic zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) single crowns is influenced by three different self-adhesive resin cements. Methods: Forty-five typodont teeth fully prepared for full monolithic crowns were divided into three groups (fifteen each) for the use of three different self-adhesive resin cements. A fourth control group (Temp-bond) was created by taking five teeth from each group before cementation with self-adhesive resin cements. All forty-five abutments were scanned using a Primescan intra-oral scanner (IOS), followed by computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) full crowns using a four-axis machine. Initially, the crowns of the control group were fixed to the abutments using Temp-bond, and the marginal gap was evaluated using a scanning electronic microscope (SEM). After removing the control group crowns from the abutments, fifteen crowns in each group were cemented using a different self-adhesive resin cement and observed under SEM for evaluation of the marginal gap. A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed, indicating no normal distribution (p < 0.05), followed by Mann–Whitney tests (α = 0.05). Results: The total mean marginal gap of the temp-bond control group was significantly lower compared to all three groups of self-adhesive resin cement (p < 0.0005). The total mean marginal gap of the G-cem ONE group was significantly lower compared to the TheraCem group (p < 0.026) and RelyX U200 group (p < 0.008). The total mean marginal gap of the TheraCem group was significantly higher than the G-cem ONE group (p < 0.026) but showed no significant difference with the RelyX U200 group (p > 0.110). Conclusions: All four groups showed a clinically acceptable marginal gap (<120 microns). Although all three groups of self-adhesive resin cement showed a significant increase in the marginal gap compared to the temp-bond control group, they were within the limits of clinical acceptability. Regarding the marginal gap, in everyday dentistry, it is acceptable to use all three self-adhesive resin cements, although the G-cem ONE group exhibited the lowest marginal gap for ZLS single crowns.

show abstract

Effect of virtual cement gap settings on the marginal fit of cemented resin-ceramic crowns on implant abutments

Cited by 9 publications

References 49 publications

Digital assessment of marginal accuracy in ceramic crowns fabricated with different marginal finish line configurations

Digital assessment of marginal accuracy in ceramic crowns fabricated with different marginal finish line configurations

Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Marginal Gap Evaluation Using Various Self-Adhesive Resin Cements by SEM

Three Self-Adhesive Resin Cements and Their Influence on the Marginal Adaptation of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Single Crowns: An In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscope Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About