Influence of preparation design on fit and ceramic thickness of CEREC 3 partial ceramic crowns after cementation. (April 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, Jae-Hoon; Cho, Byeong-Hoon; Lee, Jin-Hee; Kwon, Soo-Jung; Yi, Young-Ah; Shin, Yooseok; Roh, Byoung-Duck; Seo, Deog-Gyu
• Is Part Of: Acta odontologica Scandinavica. Volume 73:Number 2(2015)
• Page Start: 107
• Page End: 113
• Publication Date: 2014-04
• Subjects: CAD/CAM -- internal gap -- luting space -- marginal gap -- micro CT; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.6005
• DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2014.956145
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-6357

Abstract

Abstract: Objective. This study investigated the influence of preparation design on the marginal and internal gap and ceramic thickness of partial ceramic crowns (PCCs) fabricated with the CEREC 3 system. Materials and methods. Sixteen extracted human mandibular molars were prepared according to two different preparation designs ( n = 8): a retentive preparation design with traditional cusp capping (Group I) and a non-retentive preparation design with horizontal reduction of cusps (Group II). PCCs were fabricated from IPS Empress CAD with the CEREC 3 system. The parameters for luting space and minimum occlusal ceramic thickness were set to 30 μm and 1.5 mm, respectively. The fabricated PCCs were cemented to their corresponding teeth with self-adhesive resin cement and were then scanned by micro-computed tomography. The marginal and internal gaps were measured at pre-determined measuring points in five bucco-lingual and three mesio-distal cross-sectional images. The ceramic thicknesses of the PCCs were measured at the measuring points for cusp capping areas. Results. Group II (167.4 ± 76.4 μm) had a smaller overall mean gap, which included the marginal and internal gap measurements, than that of Group I (184.8 ± 89.0 μm). The internal gaps were larger than the marginal gaps, regardless of preparation design. Group I presented a thinner ceramic thickness in the cusp capping areas than the minimum occlusal ceramic thickness parameter of 1.5 mm. Conclusion. Preparation design had an influence on fit, particularly the internal gap of the PCCs. Ceramic thickness could be thinner than the minimum ceramic thickness parameter.