| Literature DB >> 28424734 |
Bruna Salamoni Sinhori1, Mauro Amaral Caldeira de Andrada1, Guilherme Carpena Lopes1, Sylvio Monteiro Junior1, Luiz Narciso Baratieri1.
Abstract
The polishing step of teeth preparations for crowns is a step often performed, so that there is an increased time during the clinical procedure. The aim of this study is to evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of all-ceramic CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns in polished preparations for crown and nonpolished preparations for crowns. For this purpose, 20 first molars were selected, which were divided into two groups (n = 10) G1, teeth that received surface roughening similar to preparation without polishing, and G2 (control), polished preparations. After the preparations were completed the teeth were scanned (Cerec Bluecam, Sirona, Bensheim, Germany), and the crowns were designed and machined using CAD/CAM technology (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany). The adaptation of the pieces was evaluated using polyvinyl siloxane replicas and stereomicroscope photographs with 70x magnifications. The normality test indicated a nonnormal result, so a Man-Whitney nonparametric test was performed. One out of the 24 measured regions showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0494). With this study it can be concluded that crowns fabricated by CAD/CAM technology performed on unpolished preparations are not influenced by the internal marginal adaptation and the ceramic part and are different from polished preparations.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28424734 PMCID: PMC5382306 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2078526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biomater ISSN: 1687-8787
Figure 1Tooth preparation of Group 2 and Group 1.
Figure 2Film capture with light silicone of another color.
Figure 3Film measurement held in stereomicroscope.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of measurement areas.
Median, minimum and maximum values of the G1 and G2.
| Measured area (G1) |
| Measured area (G2) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 119.6000 (86.0300–192.3400) | 1 | 155.7600 (70.5000–340.8300) |
| 2 | 173.0250 (84.9700–356.7100) | 2 | 117.5150 (78.9000–489.8000) |
| 3 | 126.5500 (80.9200–489.8000) | 3 | 122.1350 (96.7400–345.7600) |
| 4 | 139.5150 (57.3100–217.5800) | 4 | 148.5250 (40.9800–209.8000) |
| 5 | 128.1900 (77.0990–189.3400) | 5 | 123.2050 (69.7400–380.9200) |
| 6 | 145.9850 (30.9800–295.2700) | 6 | 125.3350 (63.6500–374.4100) |
| 7 | 193.5450 (78.3300–291.2800) | 7 | 100.8250 (76.3000–486.4000) |
| 8 | 119.3050 (52.0900–220.3600) | 8 | 85.1150 (38.71000–205.3000) |
| 9 | 143.0700 (54.9200–217.6800) | 9 | 137.6200 (64.7200–239.7000) |
| 10 | 109.7900 (85.0600–236.3700) | 10 | 96.2800 (56.8000–306.1300) |
| 11 | 128.3800 (97.5000–309.7700) | 11 | 112.6450 (65.1200–234.4200) |
| 12 | 169.8800 (66.2000–311.5200) | 12 | 125.6650 (56.1900–607.4400) |
| 13 | 154.3450 (54.0300–307.9800) | 13 | 186.6650 (112.5600–422.8300) |
| 14 | 103.2150 (44.2000–261.27000) | 14 | 153.3550 (41.3800–369.6500) |
| 15 | 185.6550 (66.2100–309.5600) | 15 | 130.6959 (44.3000–506.6800) |
| 16 | 191.7900 (77.9800–379.3400) | 16 | 179.5100 (68.8400–416.9000) |
| 17 | 229.5000 (84.2100–526.8800) | 17 | 212.9400 (110.7100–268.3500) |
| 18 | 272.7150 (76.3500–322.3800) | 18 | 215.8650 (125.7500–409.3900) |
| 19 | 204.7700 (64.5700–455.7100) | 19 | 189.9250 (52.6900–373.64000) |
| 20 | 241.3250 (184.7400–351.1400) | 20 | 210.3200 (149.7300–534.4600) |
| 21 | 211.7150 (108.9100–318.0700) | 21 | 254.7500 (87.7900–644.8800) |
| 22 | 267.4700 (159.0800–397.1200) | 22 | 237.4450 (151.6300–427.7400) |
| 23 | 278.8050 (116.5800–491.3800) | 23 | 191.2800 (95.0500–346.4500) |
| 24 | 305.3850 (130.5000–355.2700) | 24 | 216.2850 (161.5000–409.2100) |
Evaluated parameters showed statistically significant difference with a value of p = 0.0494. This difference reflects the comparison of cervical-axial-palatal angle between G1 and G2. The other areas analyzed did not present a statistically significant difference with p value > 0.05.