Lucas F Tabata1, Taiana A de Lima Silva2, Alessandra C de Paula Silveira3, Ana Paula D Ribeiro4. 1. Associate Professor, Department of Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia (UnB), Brasília, Brazil. 2. Doctoral student, Department of Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia (UnB), Brasília, Brazil. 3. Doctoral student, School of Health Sciences, University of Brasília (UnB), Brasília, Brazil. 4. Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla; Associate Professor, Department of Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia (UnB), Brasília, Brazil. Electronic address: aribeiro@dental.ufl.edu.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: With the development of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology, dentists may determine internal spacing by using the CAD-CAM software program and make internal adjustments during the clinical evaluation appointment. How these factors affect marginal adaptation is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of CAD-CAM ceramic and composite resin crowns with different internal spacings before and after internal adjustment by using microcomputed tomography. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight third molars were prepared for a complete crown, and 32 crowns were milled at chairside from composite resin and ceramic materials with different internal spacing (30 μm and 80 μm). After an initial microcomputed tomography scan, the same crowns were adjusted and scanned again. Axial space, occlusal space (OS), marginal discrepancy, and absolute marginal discrepancy were evaluated in both analyses. The need for internal adjustment was determined by an experienced clinician by using a silicone film. The number of internal adjustments was also recorded. The data were analyzed by using a 3-way ANOVA (material, internal spacing, and internal adjustment) and the Bonferroni correction (α=.05). RESULTS: For axial space, only the material factor was significantly different (P<.001), with the ceramic having the lowest value. For OS, both internal spacing and adjustments presented a statistical difference among groups with the lowest OS values obtained for 80-μm spacing after adjustment. For marginal discrepancy and absolute marginal discrepancy, the adjustment factor also had a significant effect, and the adjustment resulted in smaller measures for both variables. The 30-μm spacing required more adjustments than the 80-μm spacing (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both the internal adaptation and marginal adaptation were influenced by the internal adjustment, resulting in improved values for both. Although no differences were observed between the 30-μm and 80-μm spacings after internal adjustment for marginal adaptation, the 30-μm spacing required twice as many adjustments, resulting in longer clinical sessions.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: With the development of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology, dentists may determine internal spacing by using the CAD-CAM software program and make internal adjustments during the clinical evaluation appointment. How these factors affect marginal adaptation is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of CAD-CAM ceramic and composite resin crowns with different internal spacings before and after internal adjustment by using microcomputed tomography. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight third molars were prepared for a complete crown, and 32 crowns were milled at chairside from composite resin and ceramic materials with different internal spacing (30 μm and 80 μm). After an initial microcomputed tomography scan, the same crowns were adjusted and scanned again. Axial space, occlusal space (OS), marginal discrepancy, and absolute marginal discrepancy were evaluated in both analyses. The need for internal adjustment was determined by an experienced clinician by using a silicone film. The number of internal adjustments was also recorded. The data were analyzed by using a 3-way ANOVA (material, internal spacing, and internal adjustment) and the Bonferroni correction (α=.05). RESULTS: For axial space, only the material factor was significantly different (P<.001), with the ceramic having the lowest value. For OS, both internal spacing and adjustments presented a statistical difference among groups with the lowest OS values obtained for 80-μm spacing after adjustment. For marginal discrepancy and absolute marginal discrepancy, the adjustment factor also had a significant effect, and the adjustment resulted in smaller measures for both variables. The 30-μm spacing required more adjustments than the 80-μm spacing (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both the internal adaptation and marginal adaptation were influenced by the internal adjustment, resulting in improved values for both. Although no differences were observed between the 30-μm and 80-μm spacings after internal adjustment for marginal adaptation, the 30-μm spacing required twice as many adjustments, resulting in longer clinical sessions.