BACKGROUND: Studies focusing on the marginal accuracy of all-ceramic crowns on implant abutments are in short supply. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the marginal accuracy of all-ceramic crowns on different implant abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six standardized maxillary central incisor crowns (48 alumina and 48 zirconia) were fabricated for each of the six test groups (n = 16) (Ti1, titanium abutments-alumina crowns; Ti2, titanium abutments-zirconia crowns; Al1, alumina abutments-alumina crowns; Al2, alumina abutments-zirconia crowns; Zr1, zirconia abutments-alumina crowns; Zr2, zirconia abutments-zirconia crowns). The crowns were adhesively luted using a resin luting agent. The marginal gaps were examined on epoxy replicas before and after luting as well as after masticatory simulation at 200x magnification. RESULTS: The geometrical mean (95% confidence limits) marginal gap values before cementation, after cementation, and after masticatory simulation were group Ti1: 39(37-42), 57(53-62), and 49(46-53); group Ti2: 43(40-47), 71(67-76), and 64(59-69); group Al1: 57(54-61), 87(85-90), and 67(65-69); group Al2: 66(63-69), 96(90-101), and 75(72-78); group Zr1: 54(51-57), 79(76-82), and 65(63-67); and group Zr2: 64(60-68), 85(80-91), and 75(70-81). The comparison between non-cemented and cemented stages in each group demonstrated a significant increase in the marginal gap values after cementation in all groups (p < .001), while the comparison between cemented and aged stages in each group showed a significant decrease in the marginal gap values in groups Al1, Al2, and Zr1 (p < .0001). This reduction was not significant for groups Ti1, Ti2, and Zr2 (p > .05). CONCLUSION: The marginal accuracy of all tested restorations meets the requirements for clinical acceptance.
BACKGROUND: Studies focusing on the marginal accuracy of all-ceramic crowns on implant abutments are in short supply. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the marginal accuracy of all-ceramic crowns on different implant abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six standardized maxillary central incisor crowns (48 alumina and 48 zirconia) were fabricated for each of the six test groups (n = 16) (Ti1, titanium abutments-alumina crowns; Ti2, titanium abutments-zirconia crowns; Al1, alumina abutments-alumina crowns; Al2, alumina abutments-zirconia crowns; Zr1, zirconia abutments-alumina crowns; Zr2, zirconia abutments-zirconia crowns). The crowns were adhesively luted using a resin luting agent. The marginal gaps were examined on epoxy replicas before and after luting as well as after masticatory simulation at 200x magnification. RESULTS: The geometrical mean (95% confidence limits) marginal gap values before cementation, after cementation, and after masticatory simulation were group Ti1: 39(37-42), 57(53-62), and 49(46-53); group Ti2: 43(40-47), 71(67-76), and 64(59-69); group Al1: 57(54-61), 87(85-90), and 67(65-69); group Al2: 66(63-69), 96(90-101), and 75(72-78); group Zr1: 54(51-57), 79(76-82), and 65(63-67); and group Zr2: 64(60-68), 85(80-91), and 75(70-81). The comparison between non-cemented and cemented stages in each group demonstrated a significant increase in the marginal gap values after cementation in all groups (p < .001), while the comparison between cemented and aged stages in each group showed a significant decrease in the marginal gap values in groups Al1, Al2, and Zr1 (p < .0001). This reduction was not significant for groups Ti1, Ti2, and Zr2 (p > .05). CONCLUSION: The marginal accuracy of all tested restorations meets the requirements for clinical acceptance.
Authors: Jose Rosas; Frank Mayta-Tovalino; Violeta Malpartida-Carrillo; Arnaldo Munive Degregori; Roman Mendoza; Maria E Guerrero Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2021-06-21