Influence of three different preparation designs on the marginal and internal gaps of CEREC3 CAD/CAM inlays

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2009;34(3):177-183

Publication date (electronic) : 2009 May 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.3.177

Deog-Gyu Seo ¹, Young-Ah Yi ³, Yoon Lee ⁴, Byoung-Duck Roh ¹^,²

¹Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Korea.

²Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Korea.

³Department of Dentistry, Myongji Hospital, Kwandong University, Korea.

⁴Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Byoung-Duck Roh. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, 250 Seongsanno, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. Tel: 82-2-2228-3146, Fax: 82-2-313-7575, operatys16@yuhs.ac

Received 2009 March 12; Revised 2009 March 26; Accepted 2009 April 06.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal gaps in CEREC3 CAD/CAM inlays of three different preparation designs. CEREC3 Inlays of three different preparation designs (n = 10) were fabricated according to Group I-conventional functional cusp capping/shoulder preparation, Group II-horizontal reduction of cusps and Group III-complete reduction of cusps/shoulder preparation. After cementation of inlays, the bucco-lingual cross section was performed through the center of tooth. Cross section images of 20 magnifications were obtained through the stereomicroscope. The gaps were measured using the Leica application suite software at each reference point. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α<0.05).

The marginal gaps ranged from 80.0 to 97.8 µm for Group I, 42.0 to 194.8 µm for Group II, 51.0 to 80.2 µm for Group III. The internal gaps ranged from 90.5 to 304.1 µm for Group I, 80.0 to 274.8 µm for Group II, 79.7 to 296.7 µm for Group III. The gaps of each group were the smallest on the margin and the largest on the horizontal wall. For the CEREC3 CAD/CAM inlays, the simplified designs (groups II and III) did not demonstrate superior results compared to the traditional cusp capping design (group I).

Keywords: CAD/CAM; preparation design; marginal gap; internal gap; CEREC3

References

1. Jedynakiewicz NM, Martin N. CEREC: science, research, and clinical application. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001. 226 Suppl. 7–13.

2. Mou SH, Chai T, Wang JS, Shiau YY. Influence of different convergence angles and tooth preparation heights on the internal adaptation of Cerec crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2002. 87(3)248–255.

3. Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T, Wakabayashi K. Marginal and internal fit of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2003. 16(3)244–248.

4. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Clinical and SEM evaluation of all-ceramic chair-side CAD/CAM-generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 2003. 111(2)163–169.

5. Jeon DK, Park SH. Single-visit appointment of Cerec inlay. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007. 32(3)298.

6. Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Vult von Steyern P, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2005. 32(7)526–530.

7. Bindl A, Richter B, Mörmann WH. Survival of ceramic computer-aided design/manufacturing crowns bonded to preparations with reduced macroretention geometry. Int J Prosthodont 2005. 18(3)219–224.

8. Akbar JH, Petrie CS, Walker MP, Williams K, Eick JD. Marginal adaptation of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM composite crowns using two different finish line preparation designs. J Prosthodont 2006. 15(3)155–163.

9. Park MJ, Jin MU, Kim YK, Kim SK. Consideration of marginal adaptation in ceramic restoration using Cerec3. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007. 32(6)639.

10. Hickel R, Dasch W, Mehl A, Kremers L. CAD/CAM--fillings of the future? Int Dent J 1997. 47(5)247–258.

11. 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(1)68–73.

12. Federlin M, Schmidt S, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Partial ceramic crowns: influence of preparation design and luting material on internal adaptation. Oper Dent 2004. 29(5)560–570.

13. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabil 2005. 32(6)441–447.

14. Federlin M, Sipos C, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Partial ceramic crowns. Influence of preparation design and luting material on margin integrity--a scanning electron microscopic study. Clin Oral Investig 2005. 9(1)8–17.

15. Seo D, Yi Y, Roh B. The effect of preparation designs on the marginal and internal gaps in Cerec3 partial ceramic crowns. J Dent 2009. 37(5)374–382.

16. Otto T, Schneider D. Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. Int J Prosthodont 2008. 21(1)53–59.

17. Reiss B. Clinical results of Cerec inlays in a dental practice over a period of 18 years. Int J Comput Dent 2006. 9(1)11–22.

18. Reiss B, Walther W. Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of Cerec restorations. Int J Comput Dent 2000. 3(1)9–23.

19. Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Int J Prosthodont 2002. 15(2)122–128.

20. Sjögren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW. A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite. Int J Prosthodont 2004. 17(2)241–246.

21. Krämer N, Taschner M, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Totally bonded ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. J Adhes Dent 2008. 10(4)307–314.

22. Krämer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Dent Mater 2005. 21(3)262–271.

23. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Nikolaenko SA, Reich SM. Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro? J Adhes Dent 2007. 9Suppl 1. 107–116.

Article information Continued

(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1

Different tooth preparations suggested for inlays: (A) Group I-conventional functional cusp capping/shoulder margin, (B) Group II-horizontal flat reduction of cups, (C) Group III-complete reduction of cusps/shoulder margin.

Figure 2

Schematic drawings of preparations in Groups I, II and III, representing bucco-lingual cross sections. Reference points in Groups II and III were designated based on reference points in Group I.

Figure 3

The stereomicroscope images from each group for measuring the gap distance (× 20).

Figure 4

Marginal and internal gaps at the reference points in the bucco-linugal section.

Table 1

Marginal and internal gap measurements of bucco-lingual section (µm, mean and S.D.)

The same letters indicate mean values with no statistically significant differences in the same column (α > 0.05).

Table 2

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed in Group I (µm, mean, α < 0.05).

Table 3

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed in Group II (µm, mean, α < 0.05).

Table 4

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed in Group III (µm, mean, α < 0.05).