Marginal Vertical Discrepancies of Monolithic and Veneered Zirconia and Metal-Ceramic Three-Unit Posterior Fixed Dental Prostheses

The Marginal Fit of CAD/CAM Monolithic Ceramic and Metal‐Ceramic Crowns

“…Regarding the zirconia‐ceramic group, in the present study, the mean marginal gap values were similar to those reported by Ortega et al, but lower than values observed by other authors for crowns and FDPs . Lopez‐Suarez et al reported higher values for the same monolithic zirconia system, but they used FDPs as experimental restorations. IPS e.max CAD crowns showed the lowest mean marginal openings in the current study, which could be explained by the precision of the digitization system and the mechanized technique used.…”

“…Few studies have compared discrepancies between surfaces (buccal or lingual), and the results of these studies are controversial. Several previous studies have found no differences between surfaces; however, other studies have reported differences between these surfaces, as we showed in the current study in the monolithic lithium disilicate group. Further studies are needed to clarify this discrepancy.…”

“…In the literature, the number of measurements ranged from four to more than 100 sites per restoration . Approximately 50 measurements per specimen would allow a consistent estimation of the misfit, and although it has been suggested that a larger sample size produces more consistent data, previous studies analyzing marginal adaptation have used a larger number of measurements per specimen (>50) to compensate for smaller sample sizes . In this study, 60 measurements per specimen were obtained to ensure accurate results, and the measurements were always performed by the same technician.…”

Fracture behavior, marginal gap width, and marginal quality of vented or pre‐cemented CAD/CAM all‐ceramic crowns luted on Y‐TZP implants

“…A gap width of 120 μm was considered as the maximal clinically acceptable marginal value using metal or metal‐ceramic restorations (McLean & von Fraunhofer, ). In vitro studies investigating all‐ceramic restorations reported marginal gap width ranging between 10 and 125 μm (Att, Hoischen, Gerds & Strub, ; Fathi, Al‐Masoody, El‐Ghezawi & Johnson, ; Gonzalo, Suarez, Serrano & Lozano, ; Lee et al., ; Lins, Bemfica, Queiroz & Canabarro, ; Lopez‐Suarez, Gonzalo, Pelaez, Serrano & Suarez, ; Martinez‐Rus, Ferreiroa, Ozcan & Pradies, ; Martinez‐Rus, Suarez, Rivera & Pradies, , ; Nakamura, Dei, Kojima & Wakabayashi, ; Nejatidanesh, Shakibamehr & Savabi, ; Ortega, Gonzalo, Gomez‐Polo & Suarez, ; Rodiger, Heinitz, Burgers & Rinke, ; Tamim, Skjerven, Ekfeldt & Ronold, ; Ural, Burgaz & Sarac, ). In the present study, marginal gap widths varied between 12.2 and 27.3 μm in the different groups with LS 2 and ZrO 2 , and this accuracy was possibly because the precision of the applied CAD/CAM fabrication techniques was optimized in a pilot setting.…”

Verification of a computer-aided replica technique for evaluating prosthesis adaptation using statistical agreement analysis

“…A prepared premolar with a 1.0-mm deep chamfer margin and total convergence angle of 6 degrees 25 was designed in dedicated software (CATIA V5 R18; Dassault Systemes, Suresnes Cedex, France). The die design contained the base part, with notches.…”