Evaluation of the marginal fit of finish line designs of novel CAD/CAM restoration materials

Year 2023, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 116 - 121, 12.01.2023

Bike Altan , Şevki Çınar , Beste Burcu Uz , Davut Özkan

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1216516

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare the marginal fit of crowns manufactured using different CAD/CAM materials on 2 different types of finish line design.
Material and Method: Tooth preparations were made by creating 2 different finish lines (rounded shoulder, chamfer) on an acrylic mandibular second premolar model. Impressions were taken on each preparation using polyvinylsiloxane impression material, and blocks with three different compositions including lithium disilicate (LDS), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS), and monolithic zirconia (MZ) (UP.CAD, Celtra Duo, and VITA YZ HT) were produced using a CAD/CAM (computer-aided-design and computer-aided-manufacturing) milling device (VHF R5) (n=10). The marginal gap values of the crown restorations were measured by the same operator using a stereomicroscope (LEICA DVM6). Histogram plots and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were used to test the normality of the distributions of the variables. The non-normally distributed (nonparametric) variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for two groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test for more than two groups.
Results: The marginal gap values were compared between finish line designs separately for each material. Accordingly, the marginal gap values of the rounded shoulder finish line were smaller than those of the chamfer finish line in all materials. The marginal gap values were also compared among the materials separately for each finish line type. Accordingly, the marginal gap values of the VITA YZ HT (MZ) material were smaller than those of the Celtra Duo (ZLS) and UP.CAD (LDS) materials for both finish line designs. There was no significant difference between Celtra Duo and UP.CAD.
Conclusion: The finish line design is a factor that affects marginal fit. Monolithic zirconia is more appropriate for clinical use as it shows a better marginal fit compared to LDS and ZLS.

Keywords

Finish line, glass ceramic, CAD/CAM, marginal fit, monolithic zirconia

References

• Aziz A, El-Mowafy O, Paredes S. Clinical outcomes of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology: A systematic review. Dent Med Probl 2020; 57: 197–206.
• Zarone F, Ruggiero G, Leone R, Breschi L, Leuci S, Sorrentino R. Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) mechanical and biological properties: A literature review. J Dent 2021; 109: 103661.
• Church TD, Jessup JP, Guillory VL, Vandewalle KS. Translucency and strength of high-translucency monolithic zirconium oxide materials. Gen Dent 2017; 65: 48–52.
• Euán R, Figueras-Álvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Oliver-Parra R. Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design."  J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 155-62.
• Sakrana, AA. In vitro evaluation of the marginal and internal discrepancies of different esthetic restorations. Journal of Applied Oral Science, 2013; 21: 575–580.
• Jacobs MS, Windeler AS. An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65: 436–42
• Goldman M, Laosonthorn P, White RR. Microleakage-Full crowns and the dental pulp. J. Endod. 1992; 18: 473–75
• Sailer I, Fehér, A, Filser F, et al. Prospective clinical study of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: 3-year follow-up. Quintessence Int 2006; 37: 685–93
• McLean JW, Von F. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br. Dent. J. 1971; 131: 107–11
• Goodacre CJ, Campagni WV, Aquilino SA. Tooth preparations for complete crowns an art form based on scientific principles. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85:363-76
• Quintas AF, Oliveira F, Bottino MA. Vertical marginal discrepancy of ceramic copings with different ceramic materials, finish lines, and luting agents: an in vitro evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92: 250-7.
• Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62: 405-8.
• Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. Third Edition, .(1997) Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc., London.
• Vojdani M, Safari A, Mohaghegh M, Pardis S, Mahdavi F. The effect of porcelain firing and type of finish line on the marginal fit of zirconia copings. J Dentistry (Shiraz) 2015; 16: 113–20.
• Re D, Cerutti F, Augusti G, Cerutti A, Augusti D. Comparison of marginal fit of Lava CAD/CAM crown-copings with two finish lines. Int J Esthet Dent 2014; 9: 426-35.
• Boitelle P, Tapie L, Mawussi B, Fromentin O. Evaluation of the marginal fit of CAD-CAM zirconia copings: Comparison of 2D and 3D measurement methods. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 75–81.
• Alghazzawi TF, Al-Samadani KH, Lemons J et al. Effect of imaging powder and CAD/CAM stone types on the marginal gap of zirconia crowns. J Am Dent Assoc 2015; 146: 111–20.
• Yus EA, Cantarell JMA, Alonso AM. Comparison of the marginal fit of milled yttrium stabilized zirconium dioxide crowns obtained by scanning silicone impressions and by scanning stone replicas. J Advanced Prosthodontics 2018; 10: 236–44.
• Dahl BE, Dahl JE, Ronold HJ. Digital evaluation of marginal and internal fit of single-crown fixed dental prostheses. Eur J Oral Sci 2018; 126: 512–7.
• Kocaagaoglu H, Kilinc, HI, Albayrak H. Effect of digital impressions and production protocols on the adaptation of zirconia copings. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117: 102–8.
• Ji MK, Park, JH, Park SW, Yun KD, Oh GJ, Lim HP. Evaluation of marginal fit of 2 CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown systems and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crown. J Advanced Prosthodontics 2015; 7: 271–7.
• Lins L, Bemfica V, Queiroz C, Canabarro A. In vitro evaluation of the internal and marginal misfit of CAD/CAM zirconia copings. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2015; 113: 205–11.
• Khaledi AAR, Vojdani, M, Farzin M, Pirouzi S, Orandi S. The effect of sintering time on the marginal fit of zirconia copings. J Prosthodontics 2019; 28: 285–9.
• Schriwer C, Skjold A, Gjerdet NR, Oilo M. Monolithic zirconia dental crowns. Internal fit, margin quality, fracture mode and load at fracture. Dental Materials 2017; 33: 1012–20.
• Hamza TA, Ezzat HA, El-Hossary MM., Katamish HA, Shokry TE, Rosenstiel SF. Accuracy of ceramic restorations made with two CAD/CAM systems. J Prosthetic Dentistry 2013; 109: 83–7.
• Kale E, Seker E, Yilmaz B, Ozcelik, T.B. Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 890–5.
• Sener I, Turker B, Valandro, LF, Ozcan, M. Marginal gap, cement thickness, and microleakage of 2 zirconia crown systems luted with glass ionomer and MDP-based cements. General Dentistry 2014; 62: 67–70.
• Pilo R, Folkman M, Arieli A, Levartovsky, S. Marginal fit and retention strength of zirconia crowns cemented by self-adhesive resin cements. Operative Dentistry 2018; 43: 151–61
• Ahmed WM, Shariati B, Gazzaz AZ, Sayed ME, Carvalho RM. Fit of tooth-supported zirconia single crowns-A systematic review of the literature. Clin Exp Dent Res 2020; 6: 700-16.
• Tsitrou EA, Northeast SE, van Noort R. Evaluation of the marginal fit of three margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD/CAM. J Dent 2007; 35: 68-73.
• Akbar JH, Omar R, Al-Tarakmah Y. Marginal Integrity of CAD/CAM Ceramic crowns using two different finish line designs. Medical Principles and Practice 2021; 443 - 47.
• Khraishi H, Duane B. Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient. Evid Based Dent 2017; 18: 24-5.
• Ortega R, Gonzalo E, Gomez-Polo M, Lopez-Suarez C, Suarez MJ. SEM evaluation of the precision of fit of CAD/CAM zirconia and metal-ceramic posterior crowns. Dent Mater J 2017; 36: 387-93.
• Pilo R, Cardash, HS. In vivo retrospective study of cement thickness under crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 621-25.
• Baig MR, Al-Tarakemah Y, Kasim NHA, Omar R. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a CAD/CAM zirconia-based ceramic crown system. Int J Prosthodon 2022; 35: 319–29.
• Groten M, Girthofer S, Pröbster L. Marginal fit consistency of copy- milled all ceramic crowns during fabrication by light and scanning electron microscopic analysis in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 871-88.
• Memari Y, Mohajerfar M, Armin A, Kamalian F, Rezayani V, Beyabanaki E. Marginal Adaptation of CAD/CAM All-Ceramic Crowns Made by Different Impression Methods: A Literature Review. J Prosthodont 2018: 1-9
• Suárez MJ, González de Villaumbrosia P, Pradíes G, Lozano JF. Comparison of the marginal fit of Procera AllCeram crowns with two finish lines. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16: 229-32.
• Comlekoglu M, Dundar M, Ozcan M, Gungor M, Gokce B, Artunc C. Influence of cervical finish line type on the marginal adaptation of zirconia ceramic crowns. Oper Dent 2009; 34: 586-92
• Fuzzi M, Tricarico MG, Ferrari Cagidiaco E, Bonadeo G, Sorrentino R, Ferrari M. Nanoleakage and internal adaptation of zirconia and lithium disilicate single crowns with feather edge preparation. J Osseointegr 2017; 9: 250-62.
• Kim JH, Jeong JH, Lee JH, Cho HW. Fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions assessed with micro-CT. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 551-7.
• Mohaghegh M, Firouzmandi M, Ansarifard E, Ramazani L. Marginal fit of full contour monolithic zirconia in different thicknesses and layered zirconia crowns. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2020; 10: 652-8.
• Riccitiello F, Amato M, Leone R, Spagnuolo G, Sorrentino R. In vitro Evaluation of the marginal fit and internal adaptation of zirconia and lithium disilicate single crowns: Micro-CT comparison between different manufacturing procedures. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 160-72.
• Batson ER, Cooper LF, Duqum I, Mendonça G. Clinical outcomes of three different crown systems with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 770-7.
• Azarbal A, Azarbal M, Engelmeier RL, Kunkel TC. Marginal Fit Comparison of CAD/CAM Crowns Milled from Two Different Materials. J Prosthodont 2018; 27: 421-8.