• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• 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 Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.148-155
• /
• 2009

Statement of problem: The interest in all-ceramic restorations has increased as more techniques have become available. With the introduction of machinable dental ceramics and CAD/CAM systems there is a need to evaluate the quality levels of these new fabrication techniques. Purpose: This study is to evaluate the crown fidelity(absolute marginal discrepancy and internal gap) of various zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns fabricated with different CAD/CAM(computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing) systems and conventional cast metal-ceramic crowns. Material and methods: A resin tooth of lower right second premolar was prepared. After an impression was taken, one metal master die was made. Then 40 impressions of metal master dies were taken for working dies. 10 crowns per each system were fabricated using 40 working dies. Metal-ceramic crowns were cast by using the conventional method, and Procera, Lava, and Cerec inLab crowns were fabricated with their own CAD/CAM manufactruing procedures. The vertical marginal discrepancies and internal gaps of each crown groups were measured on a metal master die without a luting agent. The results were statistically analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. Results: 1. Vertical marginal discrepancies were $50.6{\pm}13.9{\mu}m$ for metal-ceramic crowns, $62.3{\pm}15.7{\mu}m$ for Procera crowns, $45.3{\pm}7.9{\mu}m$ for Lava crowns, and $71.2{\pm}2.0{\mu}m$ for Cerec inLab crowns. 2. The Internal gaps were $52.6{\pm}10.1{\mu}m$ for metal-ceramic crowns, $161.7{\pm}18.5{\mu}m$ for Procera crowns, $63.0{\pm}10.2{\mu}m$ for Lava crowns, and $73.7{\pm}10.7{\mu}m$ for Cerec inLab crowns. Conclusion: 1. The vertical marginal discrepancies of, 4 crown groups were all within the clinically acceptable range($120{\mu}m$). 2. The internal gaps of LAVA, Cerec inlab, and metal-ceramic crowns were within clinically acceptable range except Procera crown($140{\mu}m$).

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.3
• /
• pp.269-279
• /
• 2008

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Recently, various all-ceramic crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM systems have come into wide use in dental clinic. However, there are only few domestic studies on CAD/CAM restorations. PURPOSE: Purpose of this study was to compare the fidelity (absolute marginal discrepancy and internal gap) between various cores fabricated with different CAD/CAM systems (Procera system, Lava system, Cerec inLab system) and conventional metal cast core. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 cores per each system were fabricated. The absolute marginal discrepancies were measured using measuring microscope and digital counter. The internal gaps were calculated using a silicone paste. The results were statistically analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test and Tukey's HSD test. RESULTS: Within the limits of this study the results were as follows. 1. The absolute marginal discrepancies were $32.5{\pm}3.7\;{\mu}m$ for metal cast core, $72.2{\pm}7.0\;{\mu}m$ for Procera core, $40.8{\pm}5.4\;{\mu}m$ for Lava core, and $55.3{\pm}8.7\;{\mu}m$ for Cerec inLab core. The internal gaps were $38.4{\pm}5.7\;{\mu}m$ for metal cast core, $71.4{\pm}5.3\;{\mu}m$ for Procera core, $45.9{\pm}7.3\;{\mu}m$ for Lava core, and $51.8{\pm}6.2\;{\mu}m$ for Cerec inLab core. 2. The fidelity of metal cast core showed the smallest gaps, followed by Lava core, Cerec inLab core, and Procera core. CONCLUSION: The fidelities of 4 core groups were all within the clinically acceptable range ($120\;{\mu}m$).

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.22-30
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare three different CAD/CAM systems through the fracture strength of zirconia core and to evaluate the clinical availability of each system. Material and methods: The following three groups of 30 maxillary mesial incisor core for all-ceramics(each group 10) were fabricated as follows: group 1. $Adens^{(R)}$ CAD/CAM system, group 2. $Cerasys^{(R)}$ CAD/CAM system, group 3. 3M $Lava^{(R)}$ CAD/CAM system. All specimens were manufactured consistently thickness 0.5mm and relief $40{\mu}m$. Specimens were subjected to compressive loading on the lingual area by Z250/$SN5S^{(R)}$. Each group's mean and standard deviation were calculated and Kruskal Waillis test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum test were utilized to find out the relationship among the groups. Results: The results were as follows: 1. The mean fracture strength of $Adens^{(R)}$ system was $615.89{\pm}156.1N$, the $Cerasys^{(R)}$ system was $863.98{\pm}151.5N$, and the 3M $Lava^{(R)}$ system was $1143.1{\pm}286.6N$. 2. The fracture strength of the systems showed the significant statistical differences in order of 3M $Lava^{(R)}$ system, $Cerasys^{(R)}$ system, $Adens^{(R)}$ system. Conclusion: In this study, in spite of the differences among the groups, every group showed clinically useful results. It is necessary to study further clinical experiments on a long term basis.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.87-92
• /
• 2008

Purpose: In this study, we tried to compare marginal accuracy when produce ceramic crown using all ceramic materials and existent metal-ceramic system. Material and methods: All-ceramic systems were E-max (Ivoclar/Vivadent, Lichtenstein), Lava(3M, U.S.A.) and Wol-ceram(Teamziereis, Germany). Metal-ceramic system(PFG) was composed of Au-Pt alloy (Metalor, Switzerlandand) and overlying ceramic(D-sign, Ivoclar/Vivadent, Lichtenstein). We fabricated metal master die with upper diameter of 7.95mm, bottom diameter of 9.00mm, height of 5.00mm, and taper of $6^{\circ}$. All ceramic system used 0.5mm thickness ceramic coping, while metalceramic system used 0.3 thickness metal coping. By adding dentin and enamel ceramics on each coping, a crown with a proximal thickness of 1.0 mm and occlusal thickness of 2.0mm was fabricated. Pressure of 2kg was applied for 10 seconds on each crown with static load compressor. Before and after cementation, we measured the marginal gap at 4 points of each crown using optical microscope. The data was analyzed using a Student's t test and repeated-measures of analyses of variance(ANOVA) followed by a Bonferroni test. A p value<0.05 was considered significant. Results: As experiment results, marginal accuracy of wol-ceram and Lava is no good when compared with marginal accuracy of PFG. But marginal accuracy of E.max is good when compared with PFG. This result showed not significant. The marginal accuracy of E.max is good when compared with marginal accuracy of wol-ceram and Lava. Conclusion: The marginal accuracy of E.max is very good when compared with marginal accuracy of another group.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.48 no.2
• /
• pp.135-142
• /
• 2010

Purpose: This study was aimed to compare the margin and internal fitness of single anterior all-ceramic crown zirconia core made by three deferent CAD/CAM systems. Material and methods: Five single zirconia cores were manufactured by three deferent CAD/CAM systems($Cerasys^{(R)}$system, KaVo $Everest^{(R)}$system, $LAVA^{TM}$system). The manufactured zirconia cores were duplicated through the use of replica technique, and a replicated sample was sectioned in the center of bucolingual and mesiodistal direction to measure the marginal and internal gap. Measurement was carried out by using measuring microscope ($AXIO^{(R)}$) and $I-Solution^{(R)}$ and analysed through the use of ANOVA. Results: As for the mean marginal fitness of the zirconia core, it was $84.74{\pm}27.57{\mu}m$, in $Cerasys^{(R)}$, $80.23{\pm}21.07{\mu}m$ in KaVo $Everest^{(R)}$ and $96.37 {\pm}11.45{\mu}m$ in $LAVA^{TM}$, and as for the mean internal gap, it was $94.11{\pm}30.07{\mu}m$ in $Cerasys^{(R)}$, $92.31{\pm}25.18{\mu}m$ in KaVo $Everest^{(R)}$, and $94.99{\pm}18.74 {\mu}m$ in $LAVA^{TM}$. There was no significant statistically deference among the total average gap of three systems. The internal gap in KaVo $Everest^{(R)}$ seemed to be smaller than $LAVA^{TM}$ (P < .05). The internal gap in the incisal area was larger in all of the three systems. Conclusion: There was no difference in marginal fitness in $Cerasys^{(R)}$, KaVo $Everest^{(R)}$ and $LAVA^{TM}$. As for the internal fitness, it was smaller in KaVo $Everest^{(R)}$ system than $LAVA^{TM}$ system. In all of the three systems, there was a larger gap in incisal area. The marginal and internal gap was within the clinically allowed range in all of the three systems.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.48 no.2
• /
• pp.94-100
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength of the zirconia ceramic crowns according to tooth position. Material and methods: After 10 metal dies were made for each group, the zirconia ceramic crowns were fabricated using CAD/CAM system ($Lava^{TM}$ All-Ceramic System) and each crown was cemented on each metal die with resin cement (Rely $X^{TM}$ Unicem). The cemented zirconia ceramic crowns mounted on the testing jig were inclined with 30 degrees to the long axis of the tooth and the universal testing machine was used to measure the fracture strength. Results: 1. The fracture strength of the zirconia ceramic crown in the lower 1st molar (2963 N) had the highest and that in the lower central incisor (1035 N) had the lowest. 2. The fracture strength of zirconia ceramic crown was higher than that of the IPS Empress crowns in all tooth position. 3. The fracture mode of the crowns was similar. Most of fracture lines began at the loading area and extended through proximal surface perpendicular to the long axis of the crowns. 4. There were no significant differences on the fracture strength of the zirconia ceramic crowns according to tooth position except in premolar group. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the results suggested that strength of zirconia ceramic crown is satisfactory for clinical use.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.22-28
• /
• 2011

Purpose: This article attempted to examine how teeth for restoration is made in a clinical practice and utilize it as future educational material of teeth formation and basic data for additional research. Materials and methods: This experiment investigated the models sent to milling center for production of zirconia crowns. After scanned with Lava CAD/CAM System (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), they are measured on 'ImageJ (version 1.32j, National Institutes of Health, USA)' program and compared and analyzed. Convergence angle from mesio-distal surfaces and bucco-lingual surfaces of each teeth are measured. Also, bucco-lingual diameter of the region lowered as much as 0.4 mm from incisal edge in anterior teeth except canines.(This measure is defined as the Peak 0.4) The analysis of data between each group was conducted by Windows SPSS statistic program, and was proved significant on 95% confidence level by independent t-test, one-way ANOVA and multiple analysis (Sheff${\'{e}}$ test). Results: The mean value of convergence angle was $18.67^{\circ}$ It is ranked as molar ($26.70^{\circ}$) > premolar ($16.87^{\circ}$) > anterior teeth ($14.81^{\circ}$) in the order of mesio-distal convergence angle; anterior teeth ($22.32^{\circ}$) > molar ($20.93^{\circ}$) > premolar ($15.41^{\circ}$) in the order of bucco-lingual convergence angle. The mean value of Peak 0.4 was 1.18 mm. Conclusion: Convergence angle of abutment of zirconia all ceramic crown has difference depending on the location in the arch. Due to the nature of production of zirconia all ceramic crown, convergence angle of abutment and line angle finishing degree can have an effect on internal suitability of restoration.