• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.271-277
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. This study was to evaluate the marginal fit of two CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown systems compared to lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Shoulder and deep chamfer margin were formed on each acrylic resin tooth model of a maxillary first premolar. Two CAD-CAM systems (Prettau$^{(R)}$Zirconia and ZENOSTAR$^{(R)}$ZR translucent) and lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$press) crowns were made (n=16). Each crown was bonded to stone dies with resin cement (Rely X Unicem). Marginal gap and absolute marginal discrepancy of crowns were measured using a light microscope equipped with a digital camera (Leica DFC295) magnified by a factor of 100. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey's HSD test were conducted to analyze the significance of crown marginal fit regarding the finish line configuration and the fabrication system. RESULTS. The mean marginal gap of lithium disilicate glass ceramic crowns (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$press) was significantly lower than that of the CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown system (Prettau$^{(R)}$Zirconia) (P<.05). Both fabrication systems and finish line configurations significantly influenced the absolute marginal discrepancy (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The lithium disilicate glass ceramic crown (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$press) had significantly smaller marginal gap than the CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown system (Prettau$^{(R)}$Zirconia). In terms of absolute marginal discrepancy, the CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown system (ZENOSTAR$^{(R)}$ZR translucent) had under-extended margin, whereas the CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown system (Prettau$^{(R)}$Zirconia) and lithium disilicate glass ceramic crowns (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$press) had overextended margins.