ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: All-ceramic crowns are subject to fracture during function. To minimize this common clinical complication, zirconium oxide has been used as the framework for all-ceramic crowns. The aim of this study was to compare the fracture strengths of two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) zirconia crown systems: Lava and Digident. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty Lava CAD/CAM zirconia crowns and twenty Digident CAD/CAM zirconia crowns were fabricated. A metal die was also duplicated from the original prepared tooth for fracture testing. A universal testing machine was used to determine the fracture strength of the crowns. RESULTS: THE MEAN FRACTURE STRENGTHS WERE AS FOLLOWS: 54.9 ± 15.6 N for the Lava CAD/CAM zirconia crowns and 87.0 ± 16.0 N for the Digident CAD/CAM zirconia crowns. The difference between the mean fracture strengths of the Lava and Digident crowns was statistically significant (P<.001). Lava CAD/CAM zirconia crowns showed a complete fracture of both the veneering porcelain and the core whereas the Digident CAD/CAM zirconia crowns showed fracture only of the veneering porcelain. CONCLUSION: The fracture strengths of CAD/CAM zirconia crowns differ depending on the compatibility of the core material and the veneering porcelain.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Marginal fit is a very important factor considering the restoration's long-term success. However, adding porcelain to copings can cause distortion and lead to an inadequate fit which exposes more luting material to the oral environment and causes secondary caries. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal fit of 2 different all-ceramic crown systems before and after porcelain veneering. This study was also intended to verify the marginal fit of crowns originated from green machining of partially sintered blocks of zirconia (Lava CAD/CAM system) and that of crowns obtained through machining of fully sintered blocks of zirconia (Digident CAD/CAM system). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 crowns were made per each system and the marginal fit was evaluated through a light microscope with image processing (Accura 2000) at 50 points that were randomly selected. Each crown was measured twice: the first measurement was done after obtaining a 0.5 mm coping and the second measurement was done after porcelain veneering. The means and standard deviations were calculated and statistical inferences among the 2 groups were made using independent t-test and within the same group through paired t-test. RESULTS: The means and standard deviations of the marginal fit were 61.52 ± 2.88 µm for the Digident CAD/CAM zirconia ceramic crowns before porcelain veneering and 83.15 ± 3.51 µm after porcelain veneering. Lava CAD/CAM zirconia ceramic crowns showed means and standard deviations of 62.22 ± 1.78 µm before porcelain veneering and 82.03 ± 1.85 µm after porcelain veneering. Both groups showed significant differences when analyzing the marginal gaps before and after porcelain veneering within each group. However, no significant differences were found when comparing the marginal gaps of each group before porcelain veneering and after porcelain veneering as well. CONCLUSION: The 2 all-ceramic crown systems showed marginal gaps that were within a reported clinically acceptable range of marginal discrepancy.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: One of the major keys to achieve successful osseointegration of the implant is its surface properties. The aim of this study was to investigate the bone response to dental implants with different surface characteristics using the rabbit tibia model. Tricalcium phosphate (TCP) coated, anodic oxidized and turned (control) surfaces were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy two implants were placed in the tibia of eighteen rabbits. Nine rabbits were sacrificed at 3 weeks of healing and the remaining nine were sacrificed at 6 weeks of healing. The bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone volume density (BVD) were assessed by light microscope after 3 and 6 weeks of healing. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed that no significant differences in the BIC and BVD were observed between the different implant surfaces and the control group at 3 weeks and 6 weeks of healing. Data also suggested that the BVD of all the surfaces showed significant difference at 3 and 6 weeks. CONCLUSION: The present study has showed that osseointegration occurred in all investigated types of surface-treated implants. In the current study all of the threads of the implants were observed to calculate BIC and BVD values (instead of choosing some of the threads from the bone cortex for example), which didn't make BIC or BVD percentage values better than in the control group, therefore the clinical relevance of these results remains to be shown.
