PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal adaptation of a pressed ceramic material, when used with and without a metal substructure, to a traditional feldspathic porcelain-fused-to-metal restoration with a porcelain butt margin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary central incisor typodont tooth was prepared with a 1.5 mm 360 degrees shoulder with rounded internal line angle, and 30 polyether impressions were made. Dies were poured in type IV dental stone, and 30 restorations were fabricated: 10 metal ceramic restorations (MCR) with porcelain butt joints, 10 pressed to metal restorations (PTM), and 10 all-ceramic restorations (PCR). All restorations were evaluated on their respective dies at 45x magnification using an Olympus SZX-12, measurements of the marginal openings were made, and ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc tests were used to evaluate the data. RESULTS: The mean marginal opening was 72.2 +/- 5.9 microm for MCR, 49.0 +/- 5.9 microm for PTM, and 55.8 +/- 5.9 microm for PCR. The post hoc tests showed that there was a statistical difference between the marginal adaptation of the PTM and MCR groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in marginal adaptation between the PTM and the PCR groups, or the PCR and the MCR groups. CONCLUSIONS: The PTM group demonstrated a smaller mean marginal opening than the MCR group. The mean marginal openings of all three groups were within a clinically acceptable range.
PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal adaptation of a pressed ceramic material, when used with and without a metal substructure, to a traditional feldspathic porcelain-fused-to-metal restoration with a porcelain butt margin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary central incisor typodont tooth was prepared with a 1.5 mm 360 degrees shoulder with rounded internal line angle, and 30 polyether impressions were made. Dies were poured in type IV dental stone, and 30 restorations were fabricated: 10 metal ceramic restorations (MCR) with porcelain butt joints, 10 pressed to metal restorations (PTM), and 10 all-ceramic restorations (PCR). All restorations were evaluated on their respective dies at 45x magnification using an Olympus SZX-12, measurements of the marginal openings were made, and ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc tests were used to evaluate the data. RESULTS: The mean marginal opening was 72.2 +/- 5.9 microm for MCR, 49.0 +/- 5.9 microm for PTM, and 55.8 +/- 5.9 microm for PCR. The post hoc tests showed that there was a statistical difference between the marginal adaptation of the PTM and MCR groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in marginal adaptation between the PTM and the PCR groups, or the PCR and the MCR groups. CONCLUSIONS: The PTM group demonstrated a smaller mean marginal opening than the MCR group. The mean marginal openings of all three groups were within a clinically acceptable range.