Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

INFLUENCE OF THREE DIFFERENT PREPARATION DESIGNS ON THE MARGINAL AND INTERNAL GAPS OF CEREC3 CAD/CAM INLAYS

세 가지 다른 인레이 와동 형태가 CEREC3 CAD/CAM의 변연 및 내면 간극에 미치는 영향

  • Seo, Deog-Gyu (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Yi, Young-Ah (Department of Dentistry, Myongji Hospital, Kwandong University) ;
  • Lee, Yoon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Roh, Byoung-Duck (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • 서덕규 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 이영아 (관동대학교 의과대학 명지병원 치과) ;
  • 이윤 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 노병덕 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실)
  • Published : 2009.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal gaps in CEREC3 CAD/CAM inlays of three different preparation designs. CEREC3 Inlays of three different preparation designs (n=10) were fabricated according to Group I-conventional functional cusp capping/shoulder preparation, Group II-horizontal reduction of cusps and Group III-complete reduction of cusps/shoulder preparation. After cementation of inlays. the bucco-lingual cross section was performed through the center of tooth. Cross section images of 20 magnifications were obtained through the stereomicroscope. The gaps were measured using the Leica application suite software at each reference point. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (${\alpha}<0.05$). The marginal gaps ranged from 80.0 to $97.8{\mu}m$ for Group I, 42.0 to $194.8{\mu}m$ for Group II, 51.0 to $80.2{\mu}m$ for Group III. The internal gaps ranged from 90.5 to $304.1{\mu}m$ for Group I, 80.0 to $274.8{\mu}m$ for Group II, 79.7 to $296.7{\mu}m$ for Group III. The gaps of each group were the smallest on the margin and the largest on the horizontal wall. For the CEREC3 CAD/CAM inlays, the simplified designs (groups II and III) did not demonstrate superior results compared to the traditional cusp capping design (group I).

이 연구의 목적은 세 가지 다른 치아 삭제 형태에 따라 제작된 CEREC3 CAD/CAM의 인레이의 변연 및 내면 간극을 비교 평가하는 것이었다. CEREC3 인레이의 제작을 위해 다음의 제시된 방법에 따라 각 군당 10개의 시편을 준비 하였다. 제 I 군-기능 교두를 포함하는 전통적 방식의 capping과 shoulder margin, 제 II 군-교두를 수평으로 평평하게 삭제하는 단순화된 와동 형태, 제 III 군-교두의 완전한 삭제와 shoulder margin을 갖는 가장 단순화된 형태로 세 군의 시편을 제작하였다. CEREC3로부터 제작된 인레이를 대응치아에 접착시킨 후, 치아 교합면의 중심을 지나게 협설면 방향으로 microsaw를 이용하여 절단하였다. 이후 Stereomicroscope을 사용하여 20배율에서 확대 영상을 촬영하였다. 그리고 미리 정해놓은 marginal, axial, angle, Horizontal 기준점에서 Leica application suite 프로그램을 사용하여 시편과 치아 사이의 변연 및 내면 간극을 측정하였다. 일원분산분석을 사용하여 같은 기준 지점에서 세 군 사이의 차이를 분석하였으며, 각 군 안에서 여러 지점 사이의 차이 또한 알아보았다. Tukey's test로 95% 유의수준에서 사후 검정하였다. 세 군 모두에서 변연 부위에서 간극이 가장 작았으며, 변연 간극은 제 I 군 $80.0-97.8{\mu}m$, 제 II 군$42.0-194.8{\mu}m$, 제 III 군 $51.0-80.2{\mu}m$의 범위를 나타내었다. 내면 간극은 제 I 군 $90.5-304.1{\mu}m$, 제 II 군 $80.0-274.8{\mu}m$, 제 III 군 $79.7-296.7{\mu}m$의 범위를 나타냈고 horizontal wall 부위에서 가장 큰 간극을 보였다. CEREC3 CAD/CAM시스템을사용한 인레이 제작에 있어서 새롭게 제안된 두 가지의 단순화된 와동 형태는 변연 및 내면 간극이 전통적인 교두 피개 와동 형태보다 우수하지 않았다.

Keywords

References

  1. Jedynakiewicz NM, Martin N. CEREC: science, research, and clinical application. Compend Contin Educ Dent 22(6 Suppl):7-13, 2001
  2. Mou SH, Chai T, Wang JS, Shiau YY. Influence of different convergence angles and tooth preparation heights on the internal adaptation of Cerec crowns. JProsthet Dent 87(3):248-255, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.122011
  3. Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T, Wakabayashi K. Marginal and internal fit of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM allceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 16(3):244-248, 2003
  4. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Clinical and SEM evaluation of all-ceramic chair-side CAD/CAM-generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 111(2):163-169, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00022.x
  5. Jeon DK, Park SH. Single-visit appointment of Cerec inlay. 대한치과보존학회지 32(3):298, 2007
  6. Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Vult von Steyern P, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil 32(7):526-530, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01458.x
  7. Bindl A, Richter B, Mormann WH. Survival of ceramic computer-aided design/manufacturing crowns bonded to preparations with reduced macroretention geometry. Int J Prosthodont 18(3):219-224, 2005
  8. Akbar JH, Petrie CS, Walker MP, Williams K, Eick JD. Marginal adaptation of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM composite crowns using two different finish line preparationdesigns. J Prosthodont 15(3):155-163, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00095.x
  9. Park MJ, Jin MU, Kim YK, Kim SK. Consideration of marginal adaptation in ceramic restoration using Cerec3. 대한치과보존학회지 32(6):639, 2007
  10. Hickel R, Dasch W, Mehl A, Kremers L. CAD/CAM--fillings of the future? Int Dent J 47(5):247-258, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1875-595X.1997.tb00785.x
  11. Tsitrou EA, Northeast SE, van Noort R. Evaluation of the marginal fit of three margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD/CAM. J Dent 35(1):68-73,2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.04.008
  12. Federlin M, Schmidt S, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Partial ceramic crowns: influence of preparation design and luting material on internal adaptation. Oper Dent 29(5):560-570, 2004
  13. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabil 32(6):441-447, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01446.x
  14. Federlin M, Sipos C, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Partial ceramic crowns. Influence of preparation design and luting material on margin integrity--a scanning electron microscopic study. Clin Oral Investig 9(1):8-17, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-004-0276-1
  15. Seo D, Yi Y, Roh B. The effect of preparation designs on the marginal and internal gaps in Cerec3 partial ceramic crowns. J Dent 37(5):374-382, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.01.008
  16. Otto T, Schneider D. Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. Int J Prosthodont 21(1):53-59, 2008
  17. Reiss B. Clinical results of Cerec inlays in a dental practice over a period of 18 years. Int J Comput Dent 9(1):11-22, 2006
  18. Reiss B, Walther W. Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of Cerec restorations. Int J Comput Dent 3(1):9-23, 2000
  19. Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Int J Prosthodont 15(2):122-128, 2002
  20. Sjogren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW. A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite. Int J Prosthodont 17(2):241-246, 2004
  21. Kramer N, Taschner M, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Totally bonded ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. J Adhes Dent 10(4):307-314, 2008
  22. Kramer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Dent Mater 21(3):262-271,2005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.03.009
  23. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Nikolaenko SA, Reich SM. Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro? J Adhes Dent 9 Suppl 1:107-116, 2007

Cited by

  1. Influence of preparation design on fit and ceramic thickness of CEREC 3 partial ceramic crowns after cementation vol.73, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2014.956145