R J Wang1, M Liu1, D Y Song1, S Yang1, Q Wang2, L Wang1, H L Feng1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China. 2. Dental Laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the edge morphology of partial veneers made of different materials by slurry molding, heat-pressed and computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) techniques. METHODS: Thirty premolars with smooth surface and intact enamel were selected and randomly divided into five groups, 6 specimens for each group. Group A were made from feldspathic porcelain (Noritake®) by slurry molding, while Group B were made from lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS E.max® Press) by heat-pressed. Group C/D/E were respectively made from feldspar porcelain block (VITA Mark II®), zirconia-reinforced glass ceramic (VITA Suprinity®) and hybrid ceramic with a ceramic-polymer network (VITA Enamic®) by CAD/CAM techniques. All the partial veneers luted with light-cured composite resin. Then the partial veneers were trimmed and polished to achieve the smooth finishing margin, clinical polishing sets were used according to the product descriptions. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to observe the edge morphology of prostheses and the exposure of resin cements. RESULTS: The smooth surface and knife-like edge of the partial veneers could be obtained after bonding, trimming and polishing. The edges of Group A were slightly rough and the width of the exposed adhesive was (106.00±9.17) μm. In Group B, the edges were smoother than Group A, and the exposed wide adhesive strip was visible, which was (138.33±20.59) μm. In Group E, the edges were smooth too, and the width of exposed adhesive strip was (186.00±5.66) μm. The edges of Group C and Group D were rough and uneven, and the adhesive was rarely exposed, they were (50.67±7.51) μm and (65.67±17.90) μm. There were all significant differences between two groups, except Group C and Group D. CONCLUSION: After trimming and polishing in accordance with clinical procedures, the expected knife-like edge can be obtained in all groups. The width of the exposed resin adhesive of each group is different, the order: Mark II/Suprinity < Noritake < E.max Press < Enamic. The edge morphology of partial veneers in different processing technic and materials are different.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the edge morphology of partial veneers made of different materials by slurry molding, heat-pressed and computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) techniques. METHODS: Thirty premolars with smooth surface and intact enamel were selected and randomly divided into five groups, 6 specimens for each group. Group A were made from feldspathic porcelain (Noritake®) by slurry molding, while Group B were made from lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS E.max® Press) by heat-pressed. Group C/D/E were respectively made from feldspar porcelain block (VITA Mark II®), zirconia-reinforced glass ceramic (VITA Suprinity®) and hybrid ceramic with a ceramic-polymer network (VITA Enamic®) by CAD/CAM techniques. All the partial veneers luted with light-cured composite resin. Then the partial veneers were trimmed and polished to achieve the smooth finishing margin, clinical polishing sets were used according to the product descriptions. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to observe the edge morphology of prostheses and the exposure of resin cements. RESULTS: The smooth surface and knife-like edge of the partial veneers could be obtained after bonding, trimming and polishing. The edges of Group A were slightly rough and the width of the exposed adhesive was (106.00±9.17) μm. In Group B, the edges were smoother than Group A, and the exposed wide adhesive strip was visible, which was (138.33±20.59) μm. In Group E, the edges were smooth too, and the width of exposed adhesive strip was (186.00±5.66) μm. The edges of Group C and Group D were rough and uneven, and the adhesive was rarely exposed, they were (50.67±7.51) μm and (65.67±17.90) μm. There were all significant differences between two groups, except Group C and Group D. CONCLUSION: After trimming and polishing in accordance with clinical procedures, the expected knife-like edge can be obtained in all groups. The width of the exposed resin adhesive of each group is different, the order: Mark II/Suprinity < Noritake < E.max Press < Enamic. The edge morphology of partial veneers in different processing technic and materials are different.