• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.29 no.4 s.75
• /
• pp.483-490
• /
• 1999

Interdental enamel stripping is an usual method for correction of abnormal tooth shape and tooth size discrepancy which is one of the etiologic factors of malocclusion. Clinically it Is useful to correct the minor crowding in anterior teeth and posterior occlusion during finishing stage of orthodontic treatment. But this procedure has risks such as irreversible tooth reduction and remaining roughness of enamel surface can accumulate plaque which can evoke periodontal problem. Even if various methods were introduced to minimize the enamel surface roughness, their evaluation was limited in morphologic differences by scanning electronic microscope(SEM). The purpose of this study was to compare the various interdental enamel stripping method by SEM and to quantify the difference of surface roughness by use of Surfcorder SEF-30D(Kosaka Lab. Ltd.) which can measure the roughness of surface. The stripping methods were divided into mechanical and mechanical-chemical method. Air-rotor stripping and separating strip were used for mechanical stripping and $37\%$ phosphoric acid was used for chemical stripping. The enamel surface roughness after mechanical or mechanical-chemical stripping of interproximal surfaces of premolars which were extracted for orthodontic purpose were measured and compared by means of SEM and $Surfcorder^{\circledR}$, the results were as follows. 1. Enamel surface of primary treated by coarse diamond bur and separating strip groups showed highest value of roughness. 2. To compare the primary treated groups between mechanical and mechanical-chemical method, the latter group showed lower value of roughness remarkably. 3. Mechanical stripping groups which were treated both coarse and fine instrument showed lower value of roughness as much as non treated group. 4. The use of Pumice for final polishing did not show significantly smoothening the stripped enamel surface any more.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.528-534
• /
• 2008

Purpose: Marginal fit is one of the important components for the successful prosthodontic restoration. Poor fitting margin of the restoration causes hypersensitivity, secondary caries, and plaque accumulation, which later result in prosthodontic failure. CAD/CAM zirconia all-ceramic restorations, such as $LAVA^{(R)}$ (3M ESPE, St.Paul, MN) and $EVEREST^{(R)}$ (KaVo Dental GmbH, Biberach, Germany) systems were recently introduced in Korea. It is clinically meaningful to evaluate the changes of the marginal fit of the CAD/CAM zirconia systems before and after build-up. The purposes of this study are to compare the marginal fit of the two CAD/CAM all-ceramic systems with that of the ceramometal restoration, before and after porcelain build-up Material and methods: A maxillary first premolar dentiform tooth was prepared with 2.0 mm occlusal reduction, 1.0 mm axial reduction, chamfer margin, and 6 degree taperness in the axial wall. The prepared dentiform die was duplicated into the metal abutment die. The metal die was placed in the dental study model, and the full arch impressions of the model were made. Twenty four copings of 3 groups which were $LAVA^{(R)}$, $EVEREST^{(R)}$, and ceramometal restorations were fabricated. Each coping was cemented on the metal die with color-mixed Fit-checker $II^{(R)}$ (GC Cor., Tokyo, Japan). The marginal opening of each coping was measured with $Microhiscope^{(R)}$ system (HIROX KH-1000 ING-Plus, Seoul, Korea. X300 magnification). After porcelain build-up, the marginal openings of $LAVA^{(R)}$, $EVEREST^{(R)}$,and ceramometal restorations were also evaluated in the same method. Statistical analysis was done with paired t-test and one-way ANOVA test. Results: In coping states, the mean marginal opening for $EVEREST^{(R)}$ restorations was $52.00{\pm}11.94\;{\mu}m$ for $LAVA^{(R)}$ restorations $56.97{\pm}10.00\;{\mu}m$, and for ceramometal restorations $97.38{\pm}18.54\;{\mu}m$. After porcelain build-up, the mean marginal opening for $EVEREST^{(R)}$ restorations was $61.69{\pm}19.33\;{\mu}m$, for $LAVA^{(R)}$ restorations $70.81{\pm}12.99\;{\mu}m$, and for ceramometal restorations $1115.25{\pm}23.86\;{\mu}m$. Conclusion: 1. $LAVA^{(R)}$ and $EVEREST^{(R)}$ restorations in comparison with ceramometal restorations showed better marginal fit, which had significant differences (P < 0.05) in coping state and also after porcelain build-up . 2. The mean marginal opening values between $LAVA^{(R)}$ and $EVEREST^{(R)}$ restorations did not showed significant differences after porcelain build-up as well as in coping state (P > .05). 3. $EVEREST^{(R)}$, $LAVA^{(R)}$ and ceramometal restorations showed a little increased marginal opening after porcelain build-up, but did not show any statistical significance (P > .05).