ABSTRACT
PURPOSE@#Recently introduced hybrid and reinforced glass ceramic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials have been used for full-coverage restorations. However; the effect of adjustment and type of materials on internal and marginal adaptation are unknown. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the marginal and internal adaptations of crowns made of three different CAD/CAM materials before and after adjustment. @*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#One acrylic resin maxillary first molar was prepared and served as the master die. Thirty-six restorations were fabricated using CAD/CAM system (CEREC Omnicam, MCXL) with three materials including lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Suprinity), and hybrid ceramic (Enamic). Internal and marginal adaptations were evaluated with the reference point matching technique before and after adjustment. The data were analyzed using mixed ANOVA considering α=.05 as the significance level. @*RESULTS@#The effect of adjustment and its interaction with the restoration material were significant for marginal, absolute marginal, and occlusal discrepancies (P<.05). Before adjustment, Suprinity had lower marginal discrepancies than IPS e.max CAD (P=.18) and Enamic (P=.021); though no significant differences existed after adjustment. @*CONCLUSION@#Within the limitations of this study, crowns fabricated from IPS e.max CAD and Suprinity resulted in slightly better adaptation compared with Enamic crowns before adjustment. However, marginal, axial, and occlusal discrepancies were similar among all materials after the adjustment.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE@#Recently introduced hybrid and reinforced glass ceramic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials have been used for full-coverage restorations. However; the effect of adjustment and type of materials on internal and marginal adaptation are unknown. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the marginal and internal adaptations of crowns made of three different CAD/CAM materials before and after adjustment. @*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#One acrylic resin maxillary first molar was prepared and served as the master die. Thirty-six restorations were fabricated using CAD/CAM system (CEREC Omnicam, MCXL) with three materials including lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Suprinity), and hybrid ceramic (Enamic). Internal and marginal adaptations were evaluated with the reference point matching technique before and after adjustment. The data were analyzed using mixed ANOVA considering α=.05 as the significance level. @*RESULTS@#The effect of adjustment and its interaction with the restoration material were significant for marginal, absolute marginal, and occlusal discrepancies (P<.05). Before adjustment, Suprinity had lower marginal discrepancies than IPS e.max CAD (P=.18) and Enamic (P=.021); though no significant differences existed after adjustment. @*CONCLUSION@#Within the limitations of this study, crowns fabricated from IPS e.max CAD and Suprinity resulted in slightly better adaptation compared with Enamic crowns before adjustment. However, marginal, axial, and occlusal discrepancies were similar among all materials after the adjustment.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE@#. This study compared digital (reference point matching) and replica methods for measuring marginal and internal fit of full coverage restorations. @*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#. A maxillary left first molar typodent was fixed on to an aluminum base and prepared to receive all-ceramic full coverage restoration. The model was scanned with an intraoral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona, York, PA, USA). Twelve crowns were fabricated from lithium disilicate blocks (IPS emax CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) and then crystalized. Marginal and internal fit of each restoration was measured by two examiners using replica and a new digital three-dimensional technique. Reliability between the two methods and two examiners was assessed by correlation and Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (P<.05). A Bland-Altman assessment for agreement was used to compare the two methods. @*RESULTS@#. Bland-Altman assessment showed that the mean of difference for marginal, absolute marginal, and axial gap was respectively -1.04 μm, -41.9 μm, and -29.53 μm with limit of agreement (LOA) between -37.26 to 35.18 μm for marginal, -105.85 to 22.05 μm for absolute marginal and -80.52 to 22.02 μm for axial gap. Positive correlation for repeatability (P<.05) in determining marginal and internal gaps by the two examiners in both techniques was revealed. Reliability of both techniques in all sites of measurements was at least good (0.8 ≤ α < 0.9). @*CONCLUSION@#. Both measuring techniques appeared highly reliable for evaluating fit of fixed dental restorations, while reference point matching provided higher values in axial and absolute marginal gap assessment.