Evaluation using Replica Technique on the marginal and internal fitness of zirconia cores by several CAD/CAM systems.
10.4047/jkap.2010.48.2.135
- Author:
Jung Bo HUH
1
;
Cheong Gil PARK
;
Ha Young KIM
;
Chan Kyung PARK
;
Sang Wan SHIN
Author Information
1. Department of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University, Seoul, Korea. swshin@korea.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
CAD/CAM;
Zirconia core;
Marginal fitness;
Internal fitness
- MeSH:
Crowns;
Replica Techniques;
Zirconium
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2010;48(2):135-142
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: This study was aimed to compare the margin and internal fitness of single anterior all-ceramic crown zirconia core made by three deferent CAD/CAM systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five single zirconia cores were manufactured by three deferent CAD/CAM systems(Cerasys(R)system, KaVo Everest(R)system, Lava(TM) system). The manufactured zirconia cores were duplicated through the use of replica technique, and a replicated sample was sectioned in the center of bucolingual and mesiodistal direction to measure the marginal and internal gap. Measurement was carried out by using measuring microscope (AXIO(R)) and I-Solution(R) and analysed through the use of ANOVA. RESULTS: As for the mean marginal fitness of the zirconia core, it was 84.74 +/- 27.57 micrometer, in Cerasys(R), 80.23 +/- 21.07 micrometer in KaVo Everest(R) and 96.37 +/- 11.45 micrometer in Lava(TM), and as for the mean internal gap, it was 94.11 +/- 30.07 micrometer in Cerasys(R), 92.31 +/- 25.18 micrometer in KaVo Everest(R), and 94.99 +/- 18.74 micrometer in Lava(TM). There was no significant statistically deference among the total average gap of three systems. The internal gap in KaVo Everest(R) seemed to be smaller than Lava(TM) (P < .05). The internal gap in the incisal area was larger in all of the three systems. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in marginal fitness in Cerasys(R), KaVo Everest(R) and Lava(TM). As for the internal fitness, it was smaller in KaVo Everest(R) system than Lava(TM)system. In all of the three systems, there was a larger gap in incisal area. The marginal and internal gap was within the clinically allowed range in all of the three systems.
