PURPOSE: Marginal fit is valued as one of the most important criteria for the clinical quality and success of all-ceramic crowns. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the marginal fit of Lava Zirconia crown-copings on chamfer and shoulder preparations. METHODS: Two acrylic model teeth were selected to simulate the clinical preparations: one molar was prepared with a chamfer finish line (C) and one premolar was prepared with a rounded shoulder finish line (RS). Each resin model was duplicated 10 times using silicon-based impression material and poured in type IV dental stone for the fabrication of working dies. A total of 20 copings were divided into two groups (n = 10 for each finish line). Fifty measuring locations were chosen randomly along the margin on the dies and the gap width - vertical marginal discrepancy - was measured under a light microscope with a magnification of x100. Measurements were made without cementation. The mean marginal gap widths and standard deviations were calculated and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for different types of preparations in order to detect differences (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The mean marginal gap was 30 ± 3 μm for the C group and 28 ± 4 μm for the RS group. The one-way ANOVA showed no statistical significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the marginal discrepancies were all within the clinical acceptable standard set at 120 μm. Chamfer and shoulder preparations did not show differences regarding the gap dimension. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Bur design is an easily selected parameter before natural tooth preparation. Both tested finish lines are able to help clinicians in obtaining acceptable marginal fit values for the investigated zirconia copings.
PURPOSE: Marginal fit is valued as one of the most important criteria for the clinical quality and success of all-ceramic crowns. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the marginal fit of Lava Zirconia crown-copings on chamfer and shoulder preparations. METHODS: Two acrylic model teeth were selected to simulate the clinical preparations: one molar was prepared with a chamfer finish line (C) and one premolar was prepared with a rounded shoulder finish line (RS). Each resin model was duplicated 10 times using silicon-based impression material and poured in type IV dental stone for the fabrication of working dies. A total of 20 copings were divided into two groups (n = 10 for each finish line). Fifty measuring locations were chosen randomly along the margin on the dies and the gap width - vertical marginal discrepancy - was measured under a light microscope with a magnification of x100. Measurements were made without cementation. The mean marginal gap widths and standard deviations were calculated and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for different types of preparations in order to detect differences (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The mean marginal gap was 30 ± 3 μm for the C group and 28 ± 4 μm for the RS group. The one-way ANOVA showed no statistical significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the marginal discrepancies were all within the clinical acceptable standard set at 120 μm. Chamfer and shoulder preparations did not show differences regarding the gap dimension. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Bur design is an easily selected parameter before natural tooth preparation. Both tested finish lines are able to help clinicians in obtaining acceptable marginal fit values for the investigated zirconia copings.