Y Sravanthi1, Y V Ramani1, Asha M Rathod2, Sabita M Ram3, Hetal Turakhia4. 1. Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental sciences , Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, India . 2. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital , Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India . 3. Professor, H.O.D, Dean, Department of Prosthodontics, M.G.M. Dental College and Hospital , Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India . 4. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, S D Dental College and Hospital , Parbhani. Maharashtra, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: All-ceramic crowns with different core materials of different strength and aesthetics are available in recent years. The aesthetics of the crown depends mainly on the shade and translucency. Clinician should be aware of the quality and characteristics of these materials so that they will be able to opt for good material for successful clinical use. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the translucency of crowns fabricated with three different commercially available all-ceramic materials viz. Alumina - CAD-CAM Procera, Lithium disilicate - Pressable IPS e.max Press, Zirconia - CAD-CAM Lava. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All-ceramic crowns (5 per each group and total of 15 samples) were made of Alumina - CAD-CAM Procera (Group I), Lithium disilicate - Pressable IPS e.max Press (Group II), Zirconia - CAD-CAM Lava (Group III) and veneered with their respective layering ceramic. Evaluation for the Translucency (CR=Yb/Yw) over the White (Yw) and Black (Yb) backgrounds at the Incisal, Middle, Cervical, Mesial and Distal thirds of each crown were done using the Spectrophotometer. The results obtained were statistically analyzed by Paired t-test (p<0.05) and Analysis of Variance (p<0.05) for the test of significance among the groups. RESULTS: Significant differences in the contrast ratios were obtained among the three Groups (p<0.001). In this study, Group II Lithium disilicate-Pressable IPS e.max Press showed higher translucency (0.54). Group III Zirconia - CAD-CAM Lava showed the least translucency (0.75) and the translucency of Group I Alumina - CAD-CAM Procera (0.7) was in between both the groups. CONCLUSION: Translucency of material gives fair idea to clinician for the choice of material in different zones during replacement and suitability for restoration in aesthetic zone. Selection of all ceramic system depends on the translucency needed for successful prosthesis of artificial tooth so that it mimics patient's natural dentition. The qualitative measurement of translucency will give the evidence for the clinicians during selection of high or low value translucent tooth for successful replacement. Lithium disilicate - Pressable IPS e.max Press is having better translucency in comparison with other two materials in our study.
INTRODUCTION: All-ceramic crowns with different core materials of different strength and aesthetics are available in recent years. The aesthetics of the crown depends mainly on the shade and translucency. Clinician should be aware of the quality and characteristics of these materials so that they will be able to opt for good material for successful clinical use. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the translucency of crowns fabricated with three different commercially available all-ceramic materials viz. Alumina - CAD-CAM Procera, Lithium disilicate - Pressable IPS e.max Press, Zirconia - CAD-CAM Lava. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All-ceramic crowns (5 per each group and total of 15 samples) were made of Alumina - CAD-CAM Procera (Group I), Lithium disilicate - Pressable IPS e.max Press (Group II), Zirconia - CAD-CAM Lava (Group III) and veneered with their respective layering ceramic. Evaluation for the Translucency (CR=Yb/Yw) over the White (Yw) and Black (Yb) backgrounds at the Incisal, Middle, Cervical, Mesial and Distal thirds of each crown were done using the Spectrophotometer. The results obtained were statistically analyzed by Paired t-test (p<0.05) and Analysis of Variance (p<0.05) for the test of significance among the groups. RESULTS: Significant differences in the contrast ratios were obtained among the three Groups (p<0.001). In this study, Group II Lithium disilicate-Pressable IPS e.max Press showed higher translucency (0.54). Group III Zirconia - CAD-CAM Lava showed the least translucency (0.75) and the translucency of Group I Alumina - CAD-CAM Procera (0.7) was in between both the groups. CONCLUSION: Translucency of material gives fair idea to clinician for the choice of material in different zones during replacement and suitability for restoration in aesthetic zone. Selection of all ceramic system depends on the translucency needed for successful prosthesis of artificial tooth so that it mimics patient's natural dentition. The qualitative measurement of translucency will give the evidence for the clinicians during selection of high or low value translucent tooth for successful replacement. Lithium disilicate - Pressable IPS e.max Press is having better translucency in comparison with other two materials in our study.
Authors: Michael J Heffernan; Steven A Aquilino; Ana M Diaz-Arnold; Debra R Haselton; Clark M Stanford; Marcos A Vargas Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Bernd Reitemeier; Kristina Hänsel; Christian Kastner; Anke Weber; Michael H Walter Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.426