Y Li1, L Wong2, X Q Liu1, T Zhou3, J Z Lyu1, J G Tan1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China. 2. Stomatological College of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Fushan Clinical Division, Yantai Stomatological Hospital, Yantai 264001, Shandong, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the marginal roughness and marginal fitness of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) laminate veneers with different materials and thicknesses, and to provide a reference for the clinical application of laminate veneers. METHODS: The butt-to-butt type laminate veneers were prepared on resin typodonts, the preparations were scanned, and the laminate veneers were manufactured by chairside CAD/CAM equipment. The laminate veneers were divided into four groups (n=9) according to the materials (glass-matrix ceramics and resin-matrix ceramics) and thickness (0.3 mm and 0.5 mm) of the veneers, with a total of 36. The marginal topo-graphies of each laminate veneer were digitally recorded by stereomicroscope, and the marginal rough-nesses of the laminate veneers were determined by ImageJ software. The marginal fitness of the laminate veneers was measured by a fit checker and digital scanning and measuring method. At the same time, the mechanical properties of glass-matrix ceramic and resin-matrix ceramic bars (n=20) were tested by a universal testing device. RESULTS: The marginal roughness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers was (24.48±5.55) μm and (19.06±5.75) μm, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). The marginal roughness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers was (6.13±1.27) μm and (6.84±2.19) μm, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The marginal roughness of the glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers was higher than that of the resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). The marginal fitness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers were (66.30±26.71) μm and (85.48±30.44) μm, respectively. The marginal fitness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers were (56.42±19.27) μm and (58.36±8.33) μm, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference among the 4 groups (P>0.05). For glass-matrix ceramics, the flexural strength was (327.40±54.25) MPa, the flexural modulus was (44.40±4.39) GPa, and the modulus of resilience was (1.24±0.37) MPa. For resin-matrix ceramics, the flexural strength was (173.71±16.61) MPa, the flexural modulus was (11.88±0.51) GPa, and the modulus of resilience was (1.29±0.27) MPa. The flexural strength and modulus of glass-matrix ceramics were significantly higher than those of resin-matrix ceramics (P < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference in the modulus of resilience between the two materials (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The marginal roughness of CAD/CAM glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers is greater than that of resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers, but there was no statistically significant difference in marginal fitness among them. Increasing the thickness can reduce the marginal roughness of glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers, but has no effect on the marginal roughness of resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the marginal roughness and marginal fitness of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) laminate veneers with different materials and thicknesses, and to provide a reference for the clinical application of laminate veneers. METHODS: The butt-to-butt type laminate veneers were prepared on resin typodonts, the preparations were scanned, and the laminate veneers were manufactured by chairside CAD/CAM equipment. The laminate veneers were divided into four groups (n=9) according to the materials (glass-matrix ceramics and resin-matrix ceramics) and thickness (0.3 mm and 0.5 mm) of the veneers, with a total of 36. The marginal topo-graphies of each laminate veneer were digitally recorded by stereomicroscope, and the marginal rough-nesses of the laminate veneers were determined by ImageJ software. The marginal fitness of the laminate veneers was measured by a fit checker and digital scanning and measuring method. At the same time, the mechanical properties of glass-matrix ceramic and resin-matrix ceramic bars (n=20) were tested by a universal testing device. RESULTS: The marginal roughness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers was (24.48±5.55) μm and (19.06±5.75) μm, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). The marginal roughness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers was (6.13±1.27) μm and (6.84±2.19) μm, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The marginal roughness of the glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers was higher than that of the resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). The marginal fitness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers were (66.30±26.71) μm and (85.48±30.44) μm, respectively. The marginal fitness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers were (56.42±19.27) μm and (58.36±8.33) μm, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference among the 4 groups (P>0.05). For glass-matrix ceramics, the flexural strength was (327.40±54.25) MPa, the flexural modulus was (44.40±4.39) GPa, and the modulus of resilience was (1.24±0.37) MPa. For resin-matrix ceramics, the flexural strength was (173.71±16.61) MPa, the flexural modulus was (11.88±0.51) GPa, and the modulus of resilience was (1.29±0.27) MPa. The flexural strength and modulus of glass-matrix ceramics were significantly higher than those of resin-matrix ceramics (P < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference in the modulus of resilience between the two materials (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The marginal roughness of CAD/CAM glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers is greater than that of resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers, but there was no statistically significant difference in marginal fitness among them. Increasing the thickness can reduce the marginal roughness of glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers, but has no effect on the marginal roughness of resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers.
Authors: Michael D Wright; Radi Masri; Carl F Driscoll; Elaine Romberg; Geoffrey A Thompson; Dennis A Runyan Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.426