Marginal Design Evaluation for CAM Obtained Zirconia Based Crown Frameworks

Abstract:

Aim: The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of two factors on the fit of zirconia-based frameworks: the teeth preparation design and the achieving technology. Materials and methods: Sixteen maxillary molar working dies were created from two master dies and divided into four groups. The master dies were fabricated with two different preparation designs: chamfer, and shoulder. Zirconia based crown frameworks were obtained through classical modeling/CAM, and CAD/CAM procedures. For both the Cercon system was used. Marginal and internal fit for all restorations were measured on the dies using cross-sections. Results: The mean gap size varied between 81.07 and 98.53 μm for the tested groups. There was no the significant difference in the fit of CAM obtained zirconia-based frameworks, irrespective of the studied technologies or preparation designs. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, both marginal designs and achieving technologies are within acceptable ranges.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 213)
• Pages: 349-353
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.213.349
• Online since: February 2011
• Authors: Liliana Sandu, Florin Topală, Sorin Porojan
• Keywords: Achieving Technology, Crown Framework, Marginal Design, Teeth Preparation, Zirconia

References

[1] F. Beuer, H. Aggstaller, D. Edelhoff, W. Gernet, Effect of Preparation Design on the Fracture Resistance of Zirconia Crown Copings, Dental Materials Journal, 2008; 27(3): 362-7.

DOI: 10.4012/dmj.27.362

[2] M. F. Ayad, Effects of Tooth Preparation Burs and Luting Cement Types on the Marginal Fit of Extracoronal Restorations, Journal of Prosthodontics, 2009, 18: 145–51.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2008.00398.x

[3] E.A. Tsitrou, R. van Noort, Minimal preparation designs for single posterior indirect prostheses with the use of the Cerec system, Int J Comput Dent, 2008; 11(3-4): 227-40.

[4] S. Rosenstiel, M. Land, J. Fujimoto, Contemporary fixed prosthodontics, 3rd ed. Mosby, St. Louis, (2001).

[5] P.L. Tan, D.G. Gratton, A.M. Diaz-Arnold, D.C. Holmes, An In Vitro Comparison of Vertical Marginal Gaps of CAD/CAM Titanium and Conventional Cast Restorations, Journal of Prosthodontics, 2008; 17: 378–83.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2008.00302.x

[6] C.A. Mitchell, M.R. Pintado, W.H. Douglas, Nondestructive, in vitro quantification of crown margins. J Prosthet Dent, 2001; 85: 575-84.

DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2001.114268

[7] P. Limkangwalmongkol, E. Kee, G. Chiche, M.B. Blatz, Comparison of Marginal Fit between All-Porcelain Margin versus Alumina-Supported Margin on Procera Alumina Crowns, Journal of Prosthodontics, 2009; 18: 162-6.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2008.00396.x

[8] S. Rinke, A. Huls, L. Jahn, Marginal accuracy and fracture strength of conventional and copy-milled all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont, 1995; 8: 301-10.

[9] P. Pera, S. Gilodi, F. Bassi, In vitro marginal adaptation of alumina porcelain ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent, 1994; 72: 585-90.

DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90289-5

[10] Bindl, W.H. Mormann, Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown copings on chamfer preparations, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 2005; 32: 441-7.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01446.x