Marginal fit of heat-pressed vs. CAD/CAM processed all-ceramic onlays using a milling unit prototype.

The composite luting gap between ceramic and dental hard tissue can be termed an "Achilles heel". Therefore, one major goal of luting ceramics focuses on minimizing the inter-marginal gap area. This study evaluated the marginal accuracy of two all-ceramic systems. The null hypothesis was that there is no statistical difference between the marginal accuracy of the IPS Empress and Cerec 3D all-ceramic systems. On 16 casts, representing different clinical situations, the left first mandibular molar was prepared to receive large onlays (MOD and replacement of the distobuccal and distal cusps). For each cavity, one laboratory heat-pressed (IPS Empress) and one chairside CAD/CAM restoration (Cerec 3D) were manufactured. A newly developed milling unit was used for CAM processing. The restorations were placed in their respective cavities and die replicas were taken and examined under SEM for quantitative gap measurement. The gap width was measured at 11 defined landmarks by two different examiners. An overall gap width of 56 microm (+/- 31 microm) was measured for IPS Empress, compared to the significantly increased value of 70 pm (+/- 32 microm) for Cerec 3D. From a clinical viewpoint, the statistically significant difference between the two systems is not relevant, since both systems still exhibit a clinically acceptable gap width of less than 100 microm.

[1]  K. Hiller,et al.  Retrospective clinical study and survival analysis on partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years , 2000, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[2]  R. Hickel,et al.  Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. , 2004, Operative dentistry.

[3]  N M Jedynakiewicz,et al.  Interface dimensions of CEREC-2 MOD inlays. , 2000, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[4]  B Reiss,et al.  Clinical results of Cerec inlays in a dental practice over a period of 18 years. , 2006, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[5]  J R Strub,et al.  Marginal adaptation of different types of all-ceramic partial coverage restorations after exposure to an artificial mouth , 2005, British Dental Journal.

[6]  F. Burke Trends in indirect dentistry: 3. Luting materials. , 2005, Dental update.

[7]  R Hickel,et al.  Current state of development and perspectives of machine-based production methods for dental restorations. , 1999, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[8]  S C Bayne,et al.  Margin gap size of ceramic inlays using second-generation CAD/CAM equipment. , 1999, Journal of esthetic dentistry.

[9]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior. , 2000, Operative dentistry.

[10]  U Lohbauer,et al.  Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. , 2000, American journal of dentistry.

[11]  K. Hiller,et al.  Partial ceramic crowns: influence of ceramic thickness, preparation design and luting material on fracture resistance and marginal integrity in vitro. , 2007, Operative dentistry.

[12]  R. Hickel,et al.  Stabilization effects of CAD/CAM ceramic restorations in extended MOD cavities. , 2004, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[13]  N M Jedynakiewicz,et al.  Functionally-generated pathway theory, application and development in Cerec restorations. , 2001, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[14]  H Denissen,et al.  Marginal fit and short-term clinical performance of porcelain-veneered CICERO, CEREC, and Procera onlays. , 2000, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  Göran Sjögren,et al.  Interface gap size of manually and CAD/CAM-manufactured ceramic inlays/onlays in vitro. , 2002, Journal of dentistry.

[16]  In-Sung Yeo,et al.  In vitro marginal fit of three all-ceramic crown systems. , 2003, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[17]  C. Petrie,et al.  Marginal adaptation of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM composite crowns using two different finish line preparation designs. , 2006, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[18]  K. Hiller,et al.  Clinical and quantitative marginal analysis of feldspathic ceramic inlays at 4 years , 1998, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[19]  J. E. N R Buonocore Memorial Lecture. , 2006, Operative dentistry.

[20]  N M Jedynakiewicz,et al.  Clinical performance of CEREC ceramic inlays: a systematic review. , 1999, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[21]  Ariel J Raigrodski,et al.  Contemporary all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: a review. , 2004, Dental clinics of North America.

[22]  B Reiss,et al.  Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of Cerec restorations. , 2000, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[23]  H Spiekermann,et al.  Status of current CAD/CAM technology in dental medicine. , 2004, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[24]  Richard van Noort,et al.  Evaluation of the marginal fit of three margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD/CAM. , 2007, Journal of dentistry.

[25]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  Correlation of in vitro fatigue data and in vivo clinical performance of a glassceramic material. , 2008, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[26]  R. Hickel,et al.  Evaluation of micro-tensile bond strengths of composite materials in comparison to their polymerization shrinkage. , 2006, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[27]  Andreas Bindl,et al.  Clinical and SEM evaluation of all-ceramic chair-side CAD/CAM-generated partial crowns. , 2003, European journal of oral sciences.

[28]  J. Nör Buonocore Memorial Lecture: Tooth Regeneration in Operative Dentistry , 2006 .

[29]  E. McLaren,et al.  All-ceramic alternatives to conventional metal-ceramic restorations. , 1998, Compendium of continuing education in dentistry.