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

Deog-Gyu Seo; Young-Ah Yi; Yoon Lee; Byoung-Duck Roh

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.3.177

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 34(3); 2009 > Article

Original Article Influence of three different preparation designs on the marginal and internal gaps of CEREC3 CAD/CAM inlays: Deog-Gyu Seo¹, Young-Ah Yi³, Yoon Lee⁴, Byoung-Duck Roh^1,2; 2009;34(3):-183.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.3.177
Published online: May 31, 2009

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: March 12, 2009 • Revised: March 26, 2009 • Accepted: April 6, 2009

162 Views
2 Download
1 Crossref

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

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

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).

REFERENCES

1. Jedynakiewicz NM, Martin N. CEREC: science, research, and clinical application. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2001;22: 6 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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
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.Article PubMed PDF
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed PDF
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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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;9: Suppl 1. 107-116.PubMed

Tables & Figures

Figure 1

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).

REFERENCES

1. Jedynakiewicz NM, Martin N. CEREC: science, research, and clinical application. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2001;22: 6 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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
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.Article PubMed PDF
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed PDF
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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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;9: Suppl 1. 107-116.PubMed

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Influence of preparation design on fit and ceramic thickness of CEREC 3 partial ceramic crowns after cementation
Jae-Hoon Kim, Byeong-Hoon Cho, Jin-Hee Lee, Soo-Jung Kwon, Young-Ah Yi, Yooseok Shin, Byoung-Duck Roh, Deog-Gyu Seo
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica.2015; 73(2): 107. CrossRef

CanvasJS.com

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

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

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2009;34(3):177-183. Published online May 31, 2009

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

XML Download

Figure

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

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.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

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

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).

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).