In vivo wear determination of novel CAD/CAM ceramic crowns by using 3D alignment
10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.120
- Author:
Akın ALADAĞ
1
;
Didem OĞUZ
;
Muharrem Erhan ÇÖMLEKOĞLU
;
Ender AKAN
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. a.aladag@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
In vivo wear;
Antagonist wear;
Resin matrix ceramic crowns;
Glass-ceramic crowns;
Contemporary computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM)
- MeSH:
Cementation;
Ceramics;
Crowns;
Dental Enamel;
Follow-Up Studies;
Glass;
Humans;
Lithium;
Molar;
Resin Cements;
Silicates;
Tooth
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
2019;11(2):120-127
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To determine wear amount of single molar crowns, made from four different restoratives, and opposing natural teeth through computerized fabrication techniques using 3D image alignment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 single crowns (N = 24 patients, age range: 18 – 50) were made from lithium disilicate (IPS E-max CAD), lithium silicate and zirconia based (Vita Suprinity CAD), resin matrix ceramic material (Cerasmart, GC), and dual matrix (Vita Enamic CAD) blocks. After digital impressions (Cerec 3D Bluecam, DentsplySirona), the crowns were designed and manufactured (Cerec 3, DentsplySirona). A dual-curing resin cement was used for cementation (Variolink Esthetic DC, Ivoclar). Then, measurement and recording of crowns and the opposing enamel surfaces with the intraoral scanner were made as well as at the third and sixth month follow-ups. All measurements were superimposed with a software (David-Laserscanner, V3.10.4). Volume loss due to wear was calculated from baseline to follow-up periods with Siemens Unigraphics NX 10 software. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Repeated Measures for ANOVA (SPSS 21) at = .05 significance level. RESULTS: After 6 months, insignificant differences of the glass matrix and resin matrix materials for restoration/enamel wear were observed (P>.05). While there were no significant differences between the glass matrix groups (P>.05), significant differences between the resin matrix group materials (P<.05) were obtained. Although Cerasmart and Enamic were both resin matrix based, they exhibited different wear characteristics. CONCLUSION: Glass matrix materials showed less wear both on their own and opposing enamel surfaces than resin matrix ceramic materials.
