• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제44권3호
• /
• pp.275-283
• /
• 2006

Statement of problem. There have been many studies about marginal discrepancy of single restorations made by various systems and materials. However most of the statistical inferences are not definite because of sample size, measurement number, measuring instruments, etc, and there have been few studies about the marginal fit of the Digident CAD/ CAM zirconia ceramic crowns. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal fit of the anterior single restorations made by using the Digident CAD / CAM zirconia ceramic crowns with metal-ceramic restorations and to obtain more accurate information by using a large enough sample size and by making sufficient measurements per specimen. Material and Methods. The crowns were made from one extracted maxillary central incisor pre-pared with a 1mm shoulder margin and $6^{\circ}$ taper walls by milling machine. The in vitro marginal discrepancies of the digident CAD / CAM zirconia ceramic crowns and control groups(metal ceramic crowns) were evaluated and compared. Twenty crowns per each system were fabricated. Measurements of a crown were recorded at 50 points that were randomly selected for marginal gap evaluation. Parametric statistical analysis was performed for the results. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. Mean gap dimensions and standard deviations at the marginal opening for maxillary incisal crowns were $88{\pm}10{\mu}m$ for the control (metal-ceramic crowns), $92{\pm}4{\mu}m$ for Digident CAD / CAM zirconia ceramic crowns. 2. Marginal gap between Digident CAD / CAM zirconia ceramic crowns and metal ceramic crowns did not show significant difference (P>.05). 3. The Digident CAD/ CAM zirconia ceramic crowns and metal ceramic crowns showed clinically acceptable marginal discrepancy.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제5권2호
• /
• pp.92-97
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. All-ceramic crowns are subject to fracture during function. To minimize this common clinical complication, zirconium oxide has been used as the framework for all-ceramic crowns. The aim of this study was to compare the fracture strengths of two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) zirconia crown systems: Lava and Digident. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty Lava CAD/CAM zirconia crowns and twenty Digident CAD/CAM zirconia crowns were fabricated. A metal die was also duplicated from the original prepared tooth for fracture testing. A universal testing machine was used to determine the fracture strength of the crowns. RESULTS. The mean fracture strengths were as follows: $54.9{\pm}15.6$ N for the Lava CAD/CAM zirconia crowns and $87.0{\pm}16.0$ N for the Digident CAD/CAM zirconia crowns. The difference between the mean fracture strengths of the Lava and Digident crowns was statistically significant (P<.001). Lava CAD/CAM zirconia crowns showed a complete fracture of both the veneering porcelain and the core whereas the Digident CAD/CAM zirconia crowns showed fracture only of the veneering porcelain. CONCLUSION. The fracture strengths of CAD/CAM zirconia crowns differ depending on the compatibility of the core material and the veneering porcelain.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제2권2호
• /
• pp.33-38
• /
• 2010

PURPOSE. Marginal fit is a very important factor considering the restoration's long-term success. However, adding porcelain to copings can cause distortion and lead to an inadequate fit which exposes more luting material to the oral environment and causes secondary caries. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal fit of 2 different all-ceramic crown systems before and after porcelain veneering. This study was also intended to verify the marginal fit of crowns originated from green machining of partially sintered blocks of zirconia (Lava CAD/CAM system) and that of crowns obtained through machining of fully sintered blocks of zirconia (Digident CAD/CAM system). MATERIALS AND METHODS. 20 crowns were made per each system and the marginal fit was evaluated through a light microscope with image processing (Accura 2000) at 50 points that were randomly selected. Each crown was measured twice: the first measurement was done after obtaining a 0.5 mm coping and the second measurement was done after porcelain veneering. The means and standard deviations were calculated and statistical inferences among the 2 groups were made using independent t-test and within the same group through paired t-test. RESULTS. The means and standard deviations of the marginal fit were $61.52{\pm}2.88{\mu}m$ for the Digident CAD/CAM zirconia ceramic crowns before porcelain veneering and $83.15{\pm}3.51{\mu}m$ after porcelain veneering. Lava CAD/CAM zirconia ceramic crowns showed means and standard deviations of $62.22{\pm}1.78{\mu}m$ before porcelain veneering and $82.03{\pm}1.85{\mu}m$ after porcelain veneering. Both groups showed significant differences when analyzing the marginal gaps before and after porcelain veneering within each group. However, no significant differences were found when comparing the marginal gaps of each group before porcelain veneering and after porcelain veneering as well. CONCLUSION. The 2 all-ceramic crown systems showed marginal gaps that were within a reported clinically acceptable range of marginal discrepancy.