Evaluation and comparison of the marginal adaptation of two different substructure materials.
- Author:
Tahir KARAMAN
1
;
Sabiha Zelal ULKU
;
Ali Ihsan ZENGINGUL
;
Sedat GUVEN
;
Veysel ERATILLA
;
Ebru SUMER
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Galvano crowns; Marginal adaptation; Laser sintered Co-Cr; Electroformed coping; Biocompatibility
- MeSH: Cementation; Dataset; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Stainless Steel; Surface Properties
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2015;7(3):257-263
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the amount of marginal gap with two different substructure materials using identical margin preparations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty stainless steel models with a chamfer were prepared with a CNC device. Marginal gap measurements of the galvano copings on these stainless steel models and Co-Cr copings obtained by a laser-sintering method were made with a stereomicroscope device before and after the cementation process and surface properties were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A dependent t-test was used to compare the mean of the two groups for normally distributed data, and two-way variance analysis was used for more than two data sets. Pearson's correlation analysis was also performed to assess relationships between variables. RESULTS: According to the results obtained, the marginal gap in the galvano copings before cementation was measured as, on average, 24.47 +/- 5.82 microm before and 35.11 +/- 6.52 microm after cementation; in the laser-sintered Co-Cr structure, it was, on average, 60.45 +/- 8.87 microm before and 69.33 +/- 9.03 microm after cementation. A highly significant difference (P<.001) was found in marginal gap measurements of galvano copings and a significant difference (P<.05) was found in marginal gap measurements of the laser-sintered Co-Cr copings. According to the SEM examination, surface properties of laser sintered Co-Cr copings showed rougher structure than galvano copings. The galvano copings showed a very smooth surface. CONCLUSION: Marginal gaps values of both groups before and after cementation were within the clinically acceptable level. The smallest marginal gaps occurred with the use of galvano copings.
