1992
DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90153-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Marginal fit of castable ceramic crowns

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
54
1
14

Year Published

1995
1995
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
54
1
14
Order By: Relevance
“…Groten and others 18 suggested a measurement of ideally 50 points, or at least 20 to 25 measurements per crown. In earlier studies, the reliability of the marginal opening measurements were either validated by the larger sample sizes ranging from 5-10 specimens 1,[18][19] or an increased number of measurements from different points. In the current study, seven specimens for each finish line type yielded up to 64 MO and 16 AMO measurement points.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Groten and others 18 suggested a measurement of ideally 50 points, or at least 20 to 25 measurements per crown. In earlier studies, the reliability of the marginal opening measurements were either validated by the larger sample sizes ranging from 5-10 specimens 1,[18][19] or an increased number of measurements from different points. In the current study, seven specimens for each finish line type yielded up to 64 MO and 16 AMO measurement points.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Luting agent solubility may, in time, result in gap formation between the tooth and the restorative material, leading to microleakage, plaque accumulation, caries and subsequent failure of the restoration. While a clinically acceptable range of marginal discrepancies is advised to be less than 120 µm, 1 in CAD/CAM or copy-milling systems, the marginal opening has been reported to range between 60 µm and 300 µm. [2][3] Several in vitro studies demonstrated that the marginal adaptation of metal-ceramic FPDs is influenced by the type of cervical finish line, shrinkage after firing procedures of the veneering ceramic, 4-5 differences in thermal expansion coefficients of the framework and veneering ceramic and, most importantly, the amount of circumferential ceramic thickness of the substructure.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the maximum marginal gap has been suggested as the most clinically relevant measure [5], since this would likely form the point of failure of the marginal seal. The acceptable size of a marginal gap is also not clear, although values in the region of 100µm have been suggested for conventional cements [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Holmes et al [16] a marginal gap 100 to 120 µm is acceptable to avoid potential degradation or dissolution problems that could contribute to cement loss. However, other studies [17][18][19] have considered the marginal gap values of 100 to 200 µm to be clinically acceptable for cemented restorations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%