Ritu Jha1, Veena Jain, Taposh K Das, Naseem Shah, Gunjan Pruthi. 1. Junior Resident, Department of Prosthodontics, Centre of Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. jha.ritujha.ritu3@gmail.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare the marginal fidelity and surface roughness of porcelain veneers fabricated by the refractory die and pressing techniques under in vivo conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 72 veneers were prepared for anterior teeth in 12 participants. Veneers on anterior teeth in the first and second quadrants were fabricated using refractory die (group I) and pressing techniques (group II), respectively. Surface roughness was evaluated using a profilometer in three areas (cervical, mesio-incisal, disto-incisal) for each veneer. Marginal adaptation of all the veneers (N = 36/group) was evaluated at each margin (cervical, incisal, mesial, and distal) at 7 days and at 3 months after cementation under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 200× magnification. RESULTS: The mean surface roughness of veneers in cervical, mesio-incisal, and disto-incisal areas was 0.41 ± 0.25, 0.33 ± 0.14, and 0.32 ± 0.14 μm, respectively, for group I; and 0.31 ± 0.11, 0.36 ± 0.18, and 0.29 ± 0.11 μm, respectively, for group II. Intra- and intergroup comparisons showed no statistically significant values for all areas (p > 0.05). In 144 margins evaluated for each group, a visible gap was present in 15 (10.4%) and 18 (12.5%) recordings at 7 days for groups I and II, respectively. They increased to 19 (13.1%) and 20 (13.8%) after 3 months. These gaps were further broken down into percent distribution of total recordings at the cervical, incisal, mesial, and distal margins. Intragroup comparison was made using the Cochrane test. The chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used for intergroup comparison of margins, revealing no statistical difference (p > 0.05) CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, the surface roughness and marginal fidelity of porcelain veneers fabricated by refractory die technique and pressing technique were comparable.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare the marginal fidelity and surface roughness of porcelain veneers fabricated by the refractory die and pressing techniques under in vivo conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 72 veneers were prepared for anterior teeth in 12 participants. Veneers on anterior teeth in the first and second quadrants were fabricated using refractory die (group I) and pressing techniques (group II), respectively. Surface roughness was evaluated using a profilometer in three areas (cervical, mesio-incisal, disto-incisal) for each veneer. Marginal adaptation of all the veneers (N = 36/group) was evaluated at each margin (cervical, incisal, mesial, and distal) at 7 days and at 3 months after cementation under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 200× magnification. RESULTS: The mean surface roughness of veneers in cervical, mesio-incisal, and disto-incisal areas was 0.41 ± 0.25, 0.33 ± 0.14, and 0.32 ± 0.14 μm, respectively, for group I; and 0.31 ± 0.11, 0.36 ± 0.18, and 0.29 ± 0.11 μm, respectively, for group II. Intra- and intergroup comparisons showed no statistically significant values for all areas (p > 0.05). In 144 margins evaluated for each group, a visible gap was present in 15 (10.4%) and 18 (12.5%) recordings at 7 days for groups I and II, respectively. They increased to 19 (13.1%) and 20 (13.8%) after 3 months. These gaps were further broken down into percent distribution of total recordings at the cervical, incisal, mesial, and distal margins. Intragroup comparison was made using the Cochrane test. The chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used for intergroup comparison of margins, revealing no statistical difference (p > 0.05) CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, the surface roughness and marginal fidelity of porcelain veneers fabricated by refractory die technique and pressing technique were comparable.