| Literature DB >> 30643468 |
Manal Rahma Alammari1, Mohamed Hussein Abdelnabi1,2, Amal Ali Swelem1,3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) monolithic crowns are gaining momentum. Limited evidence exists about the effect of tooth preparation total occlusal convergence (TOC) on marginal and internal gap distances in addition to load to fracture values. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate, by microcomputed tomography (µCT), the influence of 12° and 20° TOC on marginal and internal adaptation of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) crowns. Moreover, values of load to fracture with and without initial cyclic loading (CL) were compared.Entities:
Keywords: CAD; CAM; marginal gap; monolithic crowns; total occlusal convergence; µCT
Year: 2018 PMID: 30643468 PMCID: PMC6318710 DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S193326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Cosmet Investig Dent ISSN: 1179-1357
Figure 12D adaptation assessment: axial gap (AG) and occlusal gap (OG).
Figure 22D adaptation assessment: marginal gap (MG), absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD).
Figure 3Specimens of the cyclic loading subgroup were held with their bases in a dynamic loading machine (Instron dynamic testing machine).
Figure 4Specimen placed in a universal testing machine (Instron universal testing machine) and submitted to compressive load test (crunch the crown test) at a cross head speed of 0.5 mm/min.
Mean values (µm) of MG, AMD, and AG for test groups
| Variables | Mean values (µm) of MG | Mean values (µm) of AMD | Mean values (µm) of AG | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12° TOC | 20° TOC | 12° TOC | 20° TOC | 12° TOC | 20° TOC | ||||
| Mesial | 52.96±18.26a | 50.50±16.73a | 0.322 | 86.08±30.00a | 86.12±28.59a,b | 0.992 | 66.13±27.44 | 65.13±30.26 | 0.673 |
| Distal | 50.09±16.04a | 49.15±16.94a | 0.687 | 82.15±31.05a | 80.61±27.40a | 0.710 | 63.36±25.68 | 62.47±25.63 | 0.671 |
| Buccal | 63.15±24.17b | 60.29±21.46b | 0.377 | 103.39±33.97b | 95.93±33.40b | 0.119 | 66.23±25.60 | 63.75±24.76 | 0.229 |
| Lingual | 53.54±18.67a | 51.75±17.88a | 0.490 | 85.39±32.91a | 82.47±30.14a | 0.514 | 62.49±24.77 | 61.40±22.97 | 0.575 |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.184 | 0.371 | ||||
Note: Mean values followed by different letters in same column show statistical difference (P<0.05).
Abbreviations: MG, marginal gap; AMD, absolute marginal discrepancy; AG, axial gap; TOC, total occlusal convergence.
Mean values (µm) of OG for test groups
| Groups | Mean ± SD mesiodistal | Mean ± SD buccolingual | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| 117.96±42.91 | 105.34±38.51 | <0.001 | |
Note: P<0.05.
Abbreviations: OG, occlusal gap; TOC, total occlusal convergence.
Mean values (mm3) of cement space for test groups
| Groups | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|
|
| |
| 17.17±6.29 | |
Note: P<0.05.
Abbreviation: TOC, total occlusal convergence.
Mean values (N) of fracture strength for test groups
| Groups | Fracture strength - NCL subgroup (mean ± SD) | Fracture strength - CL subgroup (mean ± SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| 2004±194 | 2070±241 | 0.532 | |
Note: P<0.05.
Abbreviations: N, Newton; TOC, total occlusal convergence; NCL, no cyclic loading; CL, cyclic loading.