Comparison of the marginal fit of milled yttrium stabilized zirconium dioxide crowns obtained by scanning silicone impressions and by scanning stone replicas
10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.236
- Author:
Estefanía ARANDA YUS
1
;
Josep Maria Anglada CANTARELL
;
Antonio MIÑARRO ALONSO
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Medicine Doctorate and Translational Research, University of Barcelona, Spain. earandayus@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM);
Marginal discrepancy;
Marginal fit;
Scanning silicone impressions;
Scanning stone replicas
- MeSH:
Computer-Aided Design;
Crowns;
Molar;
Silicon;
Silicones;
Yttrium;
Zirconium
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
2018;10(3):236-244
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To determine the discrepancy in monolithic zirconium dioxide crowns made with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems by comparing scans of silicone impressions and of master casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a Cr-Co master die of a first upper left molar, 30 silicone impressions were taken. The 30 silicone impressions were scanned with the laboratory scanner, thus obtaining 30 milled monolithic yttrium stabilized zirconium dioxide (YSZD) crowns (the silicone group). They were poured and the working models were scanned, obtaining 30 milled monolithic yttrium stabilized zirconium dioxide (YSZD) crowns (the plaster group). Three predetermined points were analyzed in each side of the crown (Mesial, Distal ,Vestibular and Palatal), and the marginal fit was evaluated with SEM (×600). The response variable is the discrepancy from the master model. A repeated measures ANOVA with two within subject factors was performed to study significance of main factors and interaction. RESULTS: Mean marginal discrepancy was 22.42±35.65 µm in the silicone group and 8.94±14.69 µm in the plaster group. The statistical analysis showed significant differences between the two groups and also among the four aspects. Interaction was also significant (P=.02). CONCLUSION: The mean marginal fit values of the two groups were within the clinically acceptable values. Significant differences were found between the groups according to the aspects studied. Various factors influenced the accuracy of digitizing, such as the design, the geometry, and the preparation guidance, as well as the texture, roughness and the color of the scanned material.
