Moritz Zimmermann1,2, Andre Valcanaia2, Gisele Neiva2, Albert Mehl1, Dennis Fasbinder2. 1. Department of Computerized Restorative Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A wide variety of CAD/CAM materials are available for single-tooth restorations. CAD/CAM material characteristics are different and may influence CAM fabrication accuracy. There is no study investigating the influence of different CAD/CAM materials on the final fit of the restoration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fit of endocrowns fabricated from different CAD/CAM materials using a new 3D evaluation method with an intraoral scanning system. The null hypothesis was that there are no significant differences for the fitting accuracy of different CAD/CAM materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preparation for an endocrown was performed on a maxillary right first molar on a typodont, and restorations were fabricated with a chairside CAD/CAM system (CEREC Omnicam, MCXL). Three groups using three different CAD/CAM materials were established (each n = 10): zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (Celtra Duo; CD), leucite-reinforced silicate ceramic (Empress CAD; EM), resin nanoceramic (Lava Ultimate; LU). A 3D digital measurement technique (OraCheck, Cyfex AG) using an intraoral scanner (CEREC Omnicam) was used to measure the difference in fit between the three materials for a master endocrown preparation. The preparation scan and the endocrown fit scan were matched with special difference analysis software OraCheck. Three areas were selected for fitting accuracy measurements: margin (MA), axial (AX), occlusal (OC). Statistical analysis was performed using 80% percentile, one-way ANOVA, and post-hoc Scheffé test. Significance level was set to p = 0.05. RESULTS: Results varied from best 88.9 ± 7.7 μm for marginal fit of resin nanoceramic restorations (LU_MA) to worst 182.3 ± 24.0 μm for occlusal fit of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate restorations (CD_OC). Statistically significant differences were found both within and among the test groups. Group CD performed statistically significantly different from group LU for marginal fit (MA) and axial fit (AX) (p < 0.05). For occlusal fit (OC), no statistically significant differences were found within all three test groups (p > 0.05). Deviation pattern for differences was visually analyzed with a color-coded scheme for each restoration. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences were found for different CAD/CAM materials if the CAM procedure was identical. Within the limitations of this study, the choice of CAD/CAM material may influence the fitting accuracy of CAD/CAM-fabricated restorations.
PURPOSE: A wide variety of CAD/CAM materials are available for single-tooth restorations. CAD/CAM material characteristics are different and may influence CAM fabrication accuracy. There is no study investigating the influence of different CAD/CAM materials on the final fit of the restoration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fit of endocrowns fabricated from different CAD/CAM materials using a new 3D evaluation method with an intraoral scanning system. The null hypothesis was that there are no significant differences for the fitting accuracy of different CAD/CAM materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preparation for an endocrown was performed on a maxillary right first molar on a typodont, and restorations were fabricated with a chairside CAD/CAM system (CEREC Omnicam, MCXL). Three groups using three different CAD/CAM materials were established (each n = 10): zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (Celtra Duo; CD), leucite-reinforced silicate ceramic (Empress CAD; EM), resin nanoceramic (Lava Ultimate; LU). A 3D digital measurement technique (OraCheck, Cyfex AG) using an intraoral scanner (CEREC Omnicam) was used to measure the difference in fit between the three materials for a master endocrown preparation. The preparation scan and the endocrown fit scan were matched with special difference analysis software OraCheck. Three areas were selected for fitting accuracy measurements: margin (MA), axial (AX), occlusal (OC). Statistical analysis was performed using 80% percentile, one-way ANOVA, and post-hoc Scheffé test. Significance level was set to p = 0.05. RESULTS: Results varied from best 88.9 ± 7.7 μm for marginal fit of resin nanoceramic restorations (LU_MA) to worst 182.3 ± 24.0 μm for occlusal fit of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate restorations (CD_OC). Statistically significant differences were found both within and among the test groups. Group CD performed statistically significantly different from group LU for marginal fit (MA) and axial fit (AX) (p < 0.05). For occlusal fit (OC), no statistically significant differences were found within all three test groups (p > 0.05). Deviation pattern for differences was visually analyzed with a color-coded scheme for each restoration. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences were found for different CAD/CAM materials if the CAM procedure was identical. Within the limitations of this study, the choice of CAD/CAM material may influence the fitting accuracy of CAD/CAM-fabricated restorations.
Authors: Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz; Jonas Vogler; Alexander Schmidt; Peter Rehmann; Bernd Wöstmann Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.390