Abstract
Statement of problem
Whether the precision of fit of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing
(CAD-CAM) complete crowns is affected by the finish line configuration is unclear.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of
CAD-CAM ceramic crowns made from lithium disilicate based on 3 different finish lines
(rounded shoulder, chamfer, feather-edge).
Materials and methods
Thirty anterior lithium disilicate complete crowns (n=10 per finish line group) were
fabricated by following a completely digital workflow based on digital scans made
with the TRIOS scanner. The crowns were adhesively cemented on duplicate dies of the
respective prepared Typodont teeth, and the marginal gap, absolute marginal discrepancy,
and internal gap were evaluated by using microcomputed tomography (μCT). A total of
66 values were obtained for each specimen from sagittal and transaxial sections, and
a rendering software program was used to calculate the volume of the cement gap for
each specimen by means of 3D region growing. Two-way ANOVA, Tukey post hoc tests with
Bonferroni correction, and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare the values
between the experimental groups (α=.05).
Results
Marginal gap and absolute marginal discrepancy values were statistically significantly
different between groups. In ascending order, marginal gap values were 23 ±14 μm for
rounded shoulder, 54 ±28 μm for chamfer, and 96 ±36 μm for feather-edge finish lines.
Absolute marginal discrepancy values were 96 ±34 μm for rounded shoulder, 124 ±37
μm for chamfer, and 157 ±34 μm for feather-edge finish lines. Internal gap values
were 111 ±14 μm for feather-edge, 136 ±22 μm for chamfer, and 168 ±25 μm for rounded
shoulder finish lines. The differences in cement volume between groups were not statistically
significant (P=.200).
Conclusions
All 3 finish lines produced marginal gaps within the range of clinically accep table
values. Lithium disilicate CAD crowns with a rounded shoulder finish line had the
best marginal fit but the poorest internal fit, and lithium disilicate CAD crowns
with a feather-edge finish line had the best internal fit but the poorest marginal
fit.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Effect of fabrication technique on the marginal discrepancy and resistance of lithium disilicate crowns: an in vitro study.J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 1005-1010
- Clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival restorations with overhanging or clinically perfect margins.J Clin Periodont. 1983; 10: 563-578
- Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 447-454
- Micro-CT evaluation of the marginal fit of different In-Ceram alumina copings.Eur J Esthet Dent. 2009; 4: 278-292
- The effect of cement thickness on the fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns.Aust Dent J. 1995; 40: 17-21
- Mechanical properties of dental luting cements.J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81: 597-609
- Considerations in measurement of marginal fit.J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62: 405-408
- Guide to dental materials and devices.8th ed. American Dental Association, Chicago1978: 135-137
- The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique.Br Dent J. 1971; 131: 107-111
- Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98: 389-404
- In vitro evaluation of marginal discrepancy of monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated with different CAD-CAM systems.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 762-766
- Accuracy of ceramic restorations made with two CAD-CAM systems.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 83-87
- A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 555-560
- Marginal and internal adaptation of ceramic crown restorations fabricated with CAD-CAM technology and the heat-press technique.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 249-256
- Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD-CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1134-1140
- Fit of e.max crowns fabricated using conventional and CAD/CAM technology: a comparative study.Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 602-607
- 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.J Prosthodont. 2014; 23: 610-617
- Evaluation of the marginal fit of full ceramic crowns by the microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) technique.Eur J Dent. 2014; 8: 437-444
- Marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate ceramic crowns cemented with three different resin cements.Clin Oral Invest. 2019; 23: 315-320
- Correlation between microleakage and absolute marginal discrepancy in zirconia crowns cemented with four resin luting cements: an in vitro study.Int J Dent. 2016; 2016: 8084505
- Marginal fit of restorations before and after cementation in vivo.Int J Prosthodont. 1993; 6: 585-591
- Clinical evaluation of marginal fit of a new experimental all-ceramic system before and after cementation.Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16: 587-592
- A comparison of the marginal vertical discrepancies of zirconium and metal ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses before and after cementation.J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 102: 378-384
- Effect of different resin luting cements on the marginal fit of lithium disilicate pressed crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 975-980
- A standardized method for determination of crown margin fidelity.J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64: 18-24
- In vitro evaluation of the marginal fit and internal adaptation of zirconia and lithium disilicate single crowns: micro-CT comparison between different manufacturing procedures.Open Dent J. 2018; 12: 160
- Microleakage of various cementing agents for full cast crowns.Dent Mater. 2005; 21: 445-453
- Nanoleakage and internal adaptation of zirconia and lithium disilicate single crowns with feather edge preparation.J Osseointegration. 2017; 9: 250-262
- Optimal cement space for resin luting cements.Int J Prosthodont. 1994; 7: 209-215
- Three-dimensional evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed interim restorations fabricated on different finish line designs.J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 218-226
- The apparent increase of the Young's modulus in thin cement layers.Dent Mater. 2004; 20: 457-462
- The influence of design parameters on the FEA-determined stress distribution in CAD–CAM produced all-ceramic dental crowns.Dent Mater. 2005; 21: 242-251
- Marginal gap, internal fit, and fracture load of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays fabricated by CEREC inLab and hot-pressed techniques.J Prosthodont. 2011; 20: 535-540
- A comparison of the marginal and internal fit of porcelain laminate veneers fabricated by pressing and CAD-CAM milling and cemented with 2 different resin cements.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 470-476
- In vitro evaluation of the internal and marginal misfit of CAD/CAM zirconia copings.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 205-211
- Comparison of marginal fit between CAD-CAM and hot-press lithium disilicate crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 124-128
- Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D.Oper Dent. 2010; 35: 324-329
- Diagnostic accuracy of conventional and digital radiography for detecting misfit between the tooth and restoration in metal-restored teeth.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 39-47
- Measurement of cement thickness under lithium disilicate crowns using an impression material technique.Clin Oral Invest. 2011; 15: 521-526
- In vitro evaluation of the “replica technique” in the measurement of the fit of Procera crowns.J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008; 9: 25-32
- Nondestructive, in vitro quantification of crown margins.J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85: 575-584
- Digital evaluation of absolute marginal discrepancy: A comparison of ceramic crowns fabricated with conventional and digital techniques.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 525-529
- Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: a systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 545-551
- Evaluation of marginal and internal fit of ceramic and metallic crown copings using x-ray microtomography (micro-CT) technology.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 223-228
- Marginal and internal fit of pre-sintered Co-Cr and zirconia 3-unit fixed dental prostheses as measured using microcomputed tomography.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 409-414
- X-ray microtomographic evalution of the influence of two preparation types on the marginal fit of CAD/CAM alumina copings: A pilot study.Int J Prosthodont. 2012; 25: 170-172
- Effect of finish line variants on marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceramic optimized polymer∖fiber-reinforced composite crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91: 554-560
- An innovative method for evaluation of the 3-D internal fit of CAD/CAM crowns fabricated after direct optical versus indirect laser scan digitizing.Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17: 680-685
- Influence of cervical finish line type on the marginal adaptation of zirconia ceramic crowns.Oper Dent. 2009; 34: 586-592
- Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 155-162
- Evaluation of the marginal fit of three margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD-CAM.J Dent. 2007; 35: 68-73
- Evaluation of marginal fit of two all-ceramic copings with two finish lines.Eur J Dent. 2012; 6: 163-168
- Influence of tooth preparation design on fitting accuracy of CAD-CAM based restorations.J Esthet Restorative Dent. 2016; 28: 238-246
- Biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT): a new approach for prosthetic restoration of periodontically healthy teeth.Eur J Esthet Dent. 2013; 8: 10-23
- Vertical preparation for fixed prosthesis rehabilitation in the anterior sector.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 474-478
- Periodontal and prosthetic outcomes on teeth prepared with biologically oriented preparation technique: a 4-year follow-up prospective clinical study.J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 415-420
- Monolithic lithium disilicate complete single crowns with feather-edge preparation design in the posterior region: A multicentric retrospective study up to 12 years.Quintessence Int. 2017; 20: 601-608
- The effect of finish line preparation and layer thickness on the failure load and fractography of ZrO2 copings.J Prosthet Dent. 2008; 99: 369-376
- Bonding lithium disilicate ceramic to feather-edge tooth preparations: a minimally invasive treatment concept.J Adhes Dent. 2012; 14: 7-10
- Retrospective survival analysis of 110 lithium disilicate crowns with feather-edge marginal preparation.Int J Esthet Dent. 2015; 10: 246-257
- Marginal and internal discrepancies related to margin design of ceramic crowns fabricated by a CAD/CAM system.J Prosthodont. 2012; 21: 94-100
- Evaluation of zirconia and zirconia-reinforced glass ceramic systems fabricated for minimal invasive preparations using a novel standardization method.J Esthet Restorative Dent. 2020; 32: 560-568
- HECTOR: A 240kV micro-CT setup optimized for research.Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 463. IOP Publishing, 2013: 012012
Article info
Publication history
Published online: February 02, 2021
Footnotes
Supported by the Ghent University Special Research Fund (BOF-UGent) extended to the Center of Expertise UGCT (BOF EXP #2017.000007).
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
