An in vitro evaluation of marginal fit zirconia crowns fabricated by a CAD-CAM dental laboratory and a milling center.
CAD-CAM
CEREC
Crown
LAVA
Marginal fit
Zirconia
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 06 2019
13 06 2019
Historique:
received:
13
02
2019
accepted:
31
05
2019
entrez:
15
6
2019
pubmed:
15
6
2019
medline:
20
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Marginal fit is critical for the success and longevity of a dental restoration. Zirconia crowns can be fabricated either chair-side, in a dental laboratory or in a milling center; each can give different marginal fits results. However, discussion of the marginal fit of zirconia crowns when different fabrication methods are compared is lacking in the literature. To compare the marginal discrepancy (MD) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) of computer-aided design, and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) used in a dental laboratory and a milling center for producing monolithic zirconia crowns. The marginal fit of 30 zirconia crowns cemented to typodont teeth was evaluated by means of a sectioning technique. Fifteen crowns were fabricated with a CEREC inLAB MC X5 from IPS e.max ZirCAD blocks. Fifteen crowns were fabricated using a LAVA milling center from LAVA Plus Zirconia Blocks. The 30 crowns were sectioned with a precision saw, and MD and AMD were subsequently measured using a light microscope. Data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA technique to investigate significant differences in the marginal fit between the two fabrication systems (α = .05). The AMD dimension of the CEREC inLAB system was significantly smaller (P < .05). Mean AMD values for zirconia crowns fabricated by the CEREC inLAB were 85 μm, and for the LAVA milling center 133 μm. There was no significant difference between the two systems regarding the MD dimensions. The MD values for zirconia crowns fabricated by the CEREC inLAB were 53 μm and for the LAVA milling center 61 μm. The CEREC inLAB system demonstrated significantly better marginal fit in relation to the AMD. However, no difference between the systems was found in the MD. Monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated by the CAD-CAM CEREC inLAB system and the LAVA system milling center showed MD values of less than 120 μm, which is within the clinically acceptable range.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Marginal fit is critical for the success and longevity of a dental restoration. Zirconia crowns can be fabricated either chair-side, in a dental laboratory or in a milling center; each can give different marginal fits results. However, discussion of the marginal fit of zirconia crowns when different fabrication methods are compared is lacking in the literature.
PURPOSE
To compare the marginal discrepancy (MD) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) of computer-aided design, and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) used in a dental laboratory and a milling center for producing monolithic zirconia crowns.
METHODS
The marginal fit of 30 zirconia crowns cemented to typodont teeth was evaluated by means of a sectioning technique. Fifteen crowns were fabricated with a CEREC inLAB MC X5 from IPS e.max ZirCAD blocks. Fifteen crowns were fabricated using a LAVA milling center from LAVA Plus Zirconia Blocks. The 30 crowns were sectioned with a precision saw, and MD and AMD were subsequently measured using a light microscope. Data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA technique to investigate significant differences in the marginal fit between the two fabrication systems (α = .05).
RESULTS
The AMD dimension of the CEREC inLAB system was significantly smaller (P < .05). Mean AMD values for zirconia crowns fabricated by the CEREC inLAB were 85 μm, and for the LAVA milling center 133 μm. There was no significant difference between the two systems regarding the MD dimensions. The MD values for zirconia crowns fabricated by the CEREC inLAB were 53 μm and for the LAVA milling center 61 μm.
CONCLUSIONS
The CEREC inLAB system demonstrated significantly better marginal fit in relation to the AMD. However, no difference between the systems was found in the MD. Monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated by the CAD-CAM CEREC inLAB system and the LAVA system milling center showed MD values of less than 120 μm, which is within the clinically acceptable range.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31196041
doi: 10.1186/s12903-019-0810-9
pii: 10.1186/s12903-019-0810-9
pmc: PMC6567516
doi:
Substances chimiques
Zirconium
C6V6S92N3C
zirconium oxide
S38N85C5G0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103Références
J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Oct;62(4):405-8
pubmed: 2685240
J Prosthodont. 2019 Mar;28(3):288-298
pubmed: 30656786
J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Mar;107(3):170-7
pubmed: 22385693
Dent Mater. 2008 Mar;24(3):299-307
pubmed: 17659331
Br Dent J. 1971 Aug 3;131(3):107-11
pubmed: 5283545
J Am Dent Assoc. 1981 Dec;103(6):882-5
pubmed: 6947008
Dent Mater. 2011 Jan;27(1):83-96
pubmed: 21094996
Int J Prosthodont. 1997 Sep-Oct;10(5):478-84
pubmed: 9495168
J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Nov;37(11):866-76
pubmed: 20557435
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015 Apr-Jun;15(2):173-8
pubmed: 26929507
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jan;121(1):124-128
pubmed: 29961628
Eur J Dent. 2014 Oct;8(4):437-444
pubmed: 25512721
Int J Dent. 2018 Sep 5;2018:5189767
pubmed: 30254675
Biomaterials. 1999 Jan;20(1):1-25
pubmed: 9916767
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2010 Feb 25;2:5-11
pubmed: 23662077
Oper Dent. 2012 Nov-Dec;37(6):641-9
pubmed: 22616924
Dent Mater. 2009 Jan;25(1):94-102
pubmed: 18620749
J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Nov;41(11):853-74
pubmed: 24952991
J Biomed Mater Res. 1989 Jan;23(1):45-61
pubmed: 2708404
Dent Mater. 1999 Nov;15(6):426-33
pubmed: 10863444
J Prosthodont. 2013 Jan;22(1):36-41
pubmed: 22946875
Open Dent J. 2018 Feb 22;12:160-172
pubmed: 29854014
Int J Prosthodont. 2003 May-Jun;16(3):229-32
pubmed: 12854783
J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Sep;62(3):264-9
pubmed: 2681694
Int J Prosthodont. 2004 Jan-Feb;17(1):59-64
pubmed: 15008234
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2017 Oct 27;38(6):857–863
pubmed: 29077775
J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):e477-e484
pubmed: 29194841