Norah K Alajaji1, David Bardwell2, Matthew Finkelman3, Ala Ali4. 1. Clinical Specialist, Department of Restorative Dentistry, National Guard Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2. Clinical Professor, Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Public Health and Community Service, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, OneKneeland Street, Office 224, Boston, MA, 0211, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of CAD/CAM lithium-disilicate inlay restorations fabricated by two milling systems (Five and Three-axis), and a traditional heat-press technique. METHODS: Fifteen premolar teeth with an MOD cavity preparation were fabricated. Lithium-disilicate inlay restorations were obtained by three fabrication techniques and fitted to their dies (n = 15/gp) as follows: Group-1, three-axis milling system, Group-2, five-axis milling system, Group-3, conventional heat-press technique. Gaps were evaluated by X-ray microtomography. Marginal gap (MG), occlusal-marginal gap (OMG), proximal-marginal gap (PMG), gingival-marginal gap (GMG), absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD), axial-internal gap (AIG), and occlusal-internal gap (OIG) were evaluated at 120 different points per inlay. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for post-hoc testes and the Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for multiple comparisons (α = 0.007). RESULTS: The heat-press group demonstrated significantly smaller mean-values amongst all outcomes compared with CAD/CAM groups except for GMG, where there was no statistically significant difference between groups in the ANOVA (p = 0.042). Within the CAD/CAM groups, the five-axis group showed significantly lower OMG mean-value compared with the three-axis group p < 0.001, and lower AIG mean-value compared with the three-axis group p < 0.001. There was no significant difference between the five-axis and the three-axis groups' AMD, MG, PMG, and OIG locations. CONCLUSION: Different fabrication techniques affected the marginal and internal adaptation of ceramic inlay restorations. The heat-press group showed the best marginal and internal adaptation results; however, in every group, all samples were within the clinically acceptable MG limit (100 μm). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The marginal fit and internal adaptation of inlay ceramic restorations fabricated by a five-axis milling system have not been tested or compared with those fabricated by three-axis machines and the conventional heat-press method. The preferred method of inlay fabrication, whether in the lab or chair side, may be influenced by the results of this study and could affect future clinical decision-making. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:49-58, 2017).
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of CAD/CAMlithium-disilicate inlay restorations fabricated by two milling systems (Five and Three-axis), and a traditional heat-press technique. METHODS: Fifteen premolar teeth with an MOD cavity preparation were fabricated. Lithium-disilicate inlay restorations were obtained by three fabrication techniques and fitted to their dies (n = 15/gp) as follows: Group-1, three-axis milling system, Group-2, five-axis milling system, Group-3, conventional heat-press technique. Gaps were evaluated by X-ray microtomography. Marginal gap (MG), occlusal-marginal gap (OMG), proximal-marginal gap (PMG), gingival-marginal gap (GMG), absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD), axial-internal gap (AIG), and occlusal-internal gap (OIG) were evaluated at 120 different points per inlay. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for post-hoc testes and the Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for multiple comparisons (α = 0.007). RESULTS: The heat-press group demonstrated significantly smaller mean-values amongst all outcomes compared with CAD/CAM groups except for GMG, where there was no statistically significant difference between groups in the ANOVA (p = 0.042). Within the CAD/CAM groups, the five-axis group showed significantly lower OMG mean-value compared with the three-axis group p < 0.001, and lower AIG mean-value compared with the three-axis group p < 0.001. There was no significant difference between the five-axis and the three-axis groups' AMD, MG, PMG, and OIG locations. CONCLUSION: Different fabrication techniques affected the marginal and internal adaptation of ceramic inlay restorations. The heat-press group showed the best marginal and internal adaptation results; however, in every group, all samples were within the clinically acceptable MG limit (100 μm). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The marginal fit and internal adaptation of inlay ceramic restorations fabricated by a five-axis milling system have not been tested or compared with those fabricated by three-axis machines and the conventional heat-press method. The preferred method of inlay fabrication, whether in the lab or chair side, may be influenced by the results of this study and could affect future clinical decision-making. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:49-58, 2017).
Authors: Fabio Kricheldorf; Cleuber Rodrigo de Souza Bueno; Wilson da Silva Amaral; Joel Ferreira Santiago Junior; Hugo Nary Filho Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2018 Jan-Mar