LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Elsevier B.V.
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
OBJECTIVES: \ud To examine the marginal fit of resin composite crowns manufactured with the CEREC 3 system employing three different margin designs; bevel, chamfer and shoulder, by means of a replica technique and a luting agent.\ud \ud METHODS: \ud Three master casts were fabricated from an impression of a typodont molar tooth and a full-coverage crown prepared with a marginal finish of a bevel, a chamfer and a shoulder. Each cast was replicated 10 times (n = 10). Scanning of the replicas and crown designing was performed using the CEREC ScanTM system. The crowns were milled from Paradigm MZ100TM composite resin blocks. The marginal fit of the crowns was evaluated with a replica technique (AquasilTM LV, Dentsply), and with a resin composite cement (RelyXTM Unicem, AplicapTM) and measured with a travelling microscope. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA.\ud \ud RESULTS: \ud For the replica technique the average marginal gaps recorded were: Bevel Group 105±34 mm, Chamfer Group 94±27 mm and Shoulder Group 91±22 mm. For the resin composite cement the average marginal gaps were: Bevel Group 102±28 mm, Chamfer Group 91±11 mm and Shoulder Group 77±8 mm. Two-way ANOVA analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups of finishing lines regardless of the cementation technique used.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS: \ud The marginal gap of resin composite crowns manufactured with the CEREC 3 system is within the range of clinical acceptance, regardless of the finishing line prepared or the cementation technique used.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Jedynakiewicz NM, Martin N. CEREC: science, research, and clinical application. The Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 2001;22:7-13.
    • 2. Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Chairside computer-aided direct ceramic inlays. Quintessence International 1989;20:329-39.
    • 3. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials. FDI Commission Project. International Dental Journal 1998;48:3-16.
    • 4. Bayne SC, Heymann HO. CAD/CAM in dentistry: present and future applications. Quintessence International (Current Concepts) 1996;27:431-3.
    • 5. Mormann WH, Bindl A, Richter B, Apholt W, Toth RT. CEREC computer aided design/computer-integrated manufacturing. Zurich, Switzerland: Foundation of Computer-Assisted Dentistry Publishers; 1999.
    • 6. Huerzeler MB, Fett H, Mormann WH. Marginal adaptation of CEREC CAD/CAM inlays after 3.5 years. In: Mormann WH, editor. International symposium on computer restorations state of the art of the CEREC method. Quintessence, 1991. p.417-23.
    • 7. Mormann WH, Kreicji I. Clinical and SEM evaluation of CEREC inlays after 5 years in situ. In: Mormann WH, editor. International symposium on computer restorations state of the art of the CEREC method1991:25-32.
    • 8. Peters A, Bieniek K. SEM examination of the marginal adaptation of computer machined ceramic restorations. In: Mormann WH, editor. International symposium on computer restorations state of the art of the CEREC method. Quintessence, 1991. p. 365-71.
    • 9. Inokoshi S, Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Marginal accuracy of CAD/CAM inlays made with the original and the updated software. Journal of Dentistry 1992;20:171-7.
    • 10. Isenberg BP, Essig ME, Leinfelder KF. Three-year clinical evaluation of CAD/CAM restorations. Journal of Esthetic Dentistry 1992;4:173-6.
    • 11. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Willems G, Braem M, Lambrechts P, et al. Clinical and semiquantitative marginal analysis of four tooth-coloured inlay systems at 3 years. Journal of Dentistry 1995;23:329-38.
    • 12. Denissen H, Dozic A, van der Zel J, van Waas M. Marginal fit and short-term clinical performance of porcelain-veneered CICERO, CEREC, and Procera onlays. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2000;84:506-13.
    • 13. Reiss B, Walther W. Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of Cerec restorations. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2000;3:9-23.
    • 14. Rusin RP. Properties and applications of a new composite block for CAD/CAM. The Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 2001;22:35-41.
    • 15. Aschheim KW, Dale BG. Esthetic dentistry: a clinical approach to techniques and materials. 2nd ed. Mosby; 2001.
    • 16. Richter B, Mormann WH. CEREC 3 full-ceramic CAD/CAM inlays and partial crowns, computer aided design/computer integrated manufacture. Foundation of the Advancements of Computer-Assisted Dentistry (FACD) Publishers; 2001.
    • 17. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1989;62:405-8.
    • 18. Markley MR. Restorations of silver amalgam. The Journal of American Dental Association 1951;43:133-46.
    • 19. Murdoch-Kinch CA, McLean ME. Minimally invasive dentistry. The Journal of American Dental Association 2003;134:87-95.
    • 20. Peters MC, McLean ME. Minimally invasive operative care. I. Minimal intervention and concepts for minimally invasive cavity preparations. Journal of Adhesion Adhesive Dentistry 2001;3:7-16.
    • 21. Toreskog S. The minimally invasive and aesthetic bonded porcelain technique. International Dental Journal 2002;52: 353-63.
    • 22. Freedman G. Ultraconservative dentistry. Dental Clinics of North America 1998;42:683-93. ix.
    • 23. Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Spiekermann H, Anusavice KJ. Marginal fit of alumina-and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Operative Dentistry 2001;26:367-74.
    • 24. McLean JW, von Fraunhoffer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. British Dental Journal 1971;131:107-11.
    • 25. Fransson B, Oilo G, Gjeitanger R. The fit of metal-ceramic crowns, a clinical study. Dental Materials 1985;1:197-9.
    • 26. Molin M, Karlsson S. The fit of gold inlays and three ceramic inlay systems. A clinical and in vitro study. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 1993;51:201-6.
    • 27. Christensen GJ. Clinical and research advancements in cast gold restorations. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1971;25:62-8.
    • 28. Beschnidt SM, Strub JR. Evaluation of the marginal accuracy of different allceramic crown systems after simulation in the artificial mouth. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1999;26: 582-93.
    • 29. Gardner FM. Margins of complete crowns-literature review. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1982;48: 396-400.
    • 30. Schaerer P, Sato T, Wohlwend A. A comparison of the marginal fit of three cast ceramic crown systems. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1988;59:534-42.
    • 31. Sulaiman F, Chai J, Jameson LM, Wozniak WT. A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 1997;10:478-84.
    • 32. Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T, Wakabayashi K. Marginal and internal fit of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 2003;16:244-8.
    • 33. Bindl A, Windisch S, Mormann WH. Full-ceramic CAD/CIM anterior crowns and copings. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 1999;2:97-111.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article