• 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.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.43-52
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of full-coverage all-ceramic zirconia, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, leucite glass-ceramic, or stainless steel crowns on antagonistic primary tooth wear. MATERIALS AND METHODS. There were four study groups: the stainless steel (Steel) group, the leucite glass-ceramic (Leucite) group, the lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (Lithium) group, and the monolithic zirconia (Zirconia) group. Ten flat crown specimens were prepared per group; opposing teeth were prepared using primary canines. A wear test was conducted over 100,000 chewing cycles using a dual-axis chewing simulator and a 50 N masticating force, and wear losses of antagonistic teeth and restorative materials were calculated using a three-dimensional profiling system and an electronic scale, respectively. Statistical significance was determined using One-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (P<.05). RESULTS. The Leucite group ($2.670{\pm}1.471mm^3$) showed the greatest amount of antagonist tooth wear, followed by in decreasing order by the Lithium ($2.042{\pm}0.696mm^3$), Zirconia ($1.426{\pm}0.477mm^3$), and Steel groups ($0.397{\pm}0.192mm^3$). Mean volume losses in the Leucite and Lithium groups were significantly greater than in the Steel group (P<.05). No significant difference was observed between mean volume losses in the Zirconia and Steel groups (P>.05). CONCLUSION. Leucite glass-ceramic and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic cause more primary tooth wear than stainless steel or zirconia.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.300-307
• /
• 2018

PURPOSE. To investigate the fatigue and fracture resistance of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic molar crowns on dental implants and human teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Molar crowns (n=48; n=8/group) were fabricated of a lithium-disilicate-strengthened lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic (N). Surfaces were polished (P) or glazed (G). Crowns were tested on human teeth (T) and implant-abutment analogues (I) simulating a chairside (C, crown bonded to abutment) or labside (L, screw channel) procedure for implant groups. Polished/glazed lithium disilicate (E) crowns (n=16) served as reference. Combined thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TC: $3000{\times}5^{\circ}C/3000{\times}55^{\circ}C$; ML: $1.2{\time}10^6$ cycles, 50 N) with antagonistic human molars (groups T) and steatite spheres (groups I) was performed under a chewing simulator. TCML crowns were then analyzed for failures (optical microscopy, SEM) and fracture force was determined. Data were statistically analyzed (Kolmogorow-Smirnov, one-way-ANOVA, post-hoc Bonferroni, ${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. All crowns survived TCML and showed small traces of wear. In human teeth groups, fracture forces of N crowns varied between $1214{\pm}293N$ (NPT) and $1324{\pm}498N$ (NGT), differing significantly ($P{\leq}.003$) from the polished reference EPT ($2044{\pm}302N$). Fracture forces in implant groups varied between $934{\pm}154N$ (NGI_L) and $1782{\pm}153N$ (NPI_C), providing higher values for the respective chairside crowns. Differences between polishing and glazing were not significant ($P{\geq}.066$) between crowns of identical materials and abutment support. CONCLUSION. Fracture resistance was influenced by the ceramic material, and partly by the tooth or implant situation and the clinical procedure (chairside/labside). Type of surface finish (polishing/glazing) had no significant influence. Clinical survival of the new glass ceramic may be comparable to lithium disilicate.

• Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.86-94
• /
• 2014

In recent years, perhaps the biggest driver in new material development is the desire to improve crown and bridge esthetics compared to the traditional PFM or all-metal restorations. As such, zirconia, leucite-containing glass ceramic and lithium disilicate glass ceramic have become prominent in the dental practice. Each material type performs differently regarding strength, toughness, ease of machining and the final preparation of the material prior to placement. For example, glass ceramic are typically weaker materials which limits its use to single-unit restorations. On the other hand, zirconia has a high fracture toughness which enables multi-unit restorations. This material requires a long sintering procedure which excludes its use for fast chair side production. Developed hybrid material of CAD/CAM is contained nano ceramic elements. This new material, called a Resin Nano Ceramic is unique in durability and function. The material is not a resin or composite. It is also not a pure ceramic. The material is a mixture of both and consists of ceramic. Like a composite, the material is not brittle and is fracture resistant. Like a glass ceramic, the material has excellent polish retention for lasting esthetics. The material is easily machined chair side or in a dental lab, polishes quickly to an esthetic finish and if necessary, can be useful restoratives.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.44-54
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. To assess the clinical performance of monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) crowns and metal-ceramic (MC) crowns provided by predoctoral students. This study also assessed the effects of patient and provider-related factors on their clinical performance as well as patient preference for these types of crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty-five patients who received 50 crowns (25 LDGC CAD-CAM and 25 MC) provided by predoctoral students were retrospectively examined. LDGC CAD-CAM crowns were milled in-house using the CEREC Bluecam system and cemented with either RelyX Unicem or Calibra Esthetic resin cements. MC crowns were cemented with RelyX Unicem cement. Clinical assessment of the crowns and the supporting periodontal structures were performed following the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Patients' preference was recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS). The results were statistically analyzed using log-rank test, Pearson Chi-squared test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS. Twelve complications were observed in the MC crown group (9-esthetic, 2-technical and 1-biological). In comparison, 2 complications in the LDGC CAD-CAM crown group were observed (1-technical and 1-esthetic). The 6-year cumulative survival rates for MC crowns and LDGC CAD-CAM were 90.8% and 96%, respectively, whereas the success rates were 83.4% and 96%, respectively. Overall, patients preferred the esthetic outcomes of LDGC CAD-CAM crowns over MC crowns. CONCLUSION. The high survival and success rates, low number of complications, and the high level of patients' acceptance of monolithic LDGC CAD-CAM crowns lend them well as predictable and viable alternatives to the "gold standard" MC crowns.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.56 no.3
• /
• pp.159-166
• /
• 2018

The zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic material is a material in which lithium silicate glass contains about 10% by weight of zirconia oxide (zirconia oxide). This material has both the advantages of glass ceramics and zirconia, and it is attracting attention as a CADCAM material for single tooth restoration. ZLS materials have improved strength compared to widely used e.max (lithium disilicate ceramic) materials. It can be used for single crown restoration and ensuring a thickness of 1.5 mm is very important for reliable treatment. In the case of Celtra Duo, heat treatment may be helpful in terms of strength and abrasion resistance. Hydrofluoric acid treatment is helpful for bonding and hydrofluoric acid for a short time may not help to improve the bonding strength. Although zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic materials have been continuously conducted and published in the laboratory, reliable clinical studies are still lacking. Additional clinical studies will be a very important part of establishing a scientific basis.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.58 no.7
• /
• pp.435-442
• /
• 2020

Porcelain is the first ceramic material to be introduced into dentistry. Porcelain jacket crown was introduced by Dr. Charles H Land in 1886, which was an excellent aesthetic dental restoration but has not been widely used due to high firing shrinkage and low tensile strength. Then metal-ceramic system, which combines the esthetic properties of ceramics and the mechanical properties of metals, was introduced and nowadays it is still used in dental clinical field. However, the metal-ceramic system has shown some problems, such as increased lightness by reflection of light at opaque layer, shadow beneath the gingival line due to the block-out of light by metal coping, exposure of metal in margin part, bond failure between metal and porcelain, oxidation of metal coping during firing the porcelain, etc. Recently, along with the advance of fabrication methods of dental ceramics, the all-ceramic restorations with high esthetic and mechanical properties has increased and gradually replaced metal-ceramic restorations. Especially, CAD/CAM technology has opened a new era in fabricating the dental ceramic restorations. This overview will take a look at the past, present and future possibility of the dental ceramic materials.