• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.39 no.6
• /
• pp.641-658
• /
• 2001

All-ceramic restorations have become an attractive alternative to porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns. In-Ceram, and more recently IPS Empress 2 were introduced as a new all-ceramic system for single crowns and 3-unit fixed partial dentures. But their strength and marginal fit are still an important issue. This study evaluated the fracture resistance and marginal fit of three systems of 3 unit all-ceramic bridge fabricated on prepared maxillary anterior resin teeth in vitro. The 3 all-ceramic bridge systems were: (1) a glass-infiltrated, sintered alumina system (In-Ceram) fabricated conventionally, (2) the same system with copy-milled alumina cores (copy-milled In-Ceram), (3) a heat pressed, lithium disilicate reinforced glass-ceramic system (IPS Empress 2). Ten bridges of each system with standardized design of framework were fabricated. All specimens of each system were compressed at $55^{\circ}$ at the palatal surface of pontic until catastrophic fracture occurred. Another seven bridges of each system were fabricated with standard method. All of the bridge-die complexes were embedded in epoxy resin and sectioned buccolingually and mesiodistally. The absolute marginal discrepancy was measured with stereomicroscope at ${\times}50$ power. The following results were obtained: 1. There was no significant difference in the fracture strength among the 3 systems studied. 2. The Weibull modulus of copy-milled In-Ceram was higher than that of In-Ceram and IPS Empress 2 bridges. 3. Copy-milled In-Ceram($112{\mu}m$) exhibited significantly greater marginal discrepancy than In Ceram ($97{\mu}m$), and IPS Empress 2 ($94{\mu}m$) at P=0.05. 4. The lingual surfaces of the ceramic crowns showed smaller marginal discrepancies than mesial and distal points. There was no significant difference between teeth (incisor, canine) at P=0.05. 5. All-ceramic bridges of three systems appeared to exhibit sufficient initial strength and accept able marginal fit values to allow clinical application.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.417-430
• /
• 1997

The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of copy-milled and conventional In-Ceram crown. Four groups of ten uniform sized all-ceramic crowns were fabricated. In-Ceram Spinell and In-Ceram Alumina crowns were fabricated as control group, Celay In-Ceram Spinell and Celay In-Ceram Alumina crowns were fabricated as test group. All specimen were cemented on stainless steel master die with resin cement, and stored in $37^{\circ}C$ water for 1 day prior to loading in Instron testing machine. Using a steel ball at a crosshead surfed of 0.5mm/min, the crowns were loaded at $30^{\circ}C$ angle until catastrophic failure occurred. The results obtained were as follows : 1. With the value of $984.8N{\pm}103.67N$, the strength of Celay In-Ceram Alumina crowns had a significantly higher fracture strength than conventional In-Ceram Alumina crowns ($876.2N{\pm}92.20N$) (P<0.05) 2. The fracture strength of Celay In-Ceram Spinell crowns($706.3{\pm}70.59N$) was greater than that of conventional In-Ceram Spinell crowns($687.4{\pm}90.26N$), but there was no significant difference(P>0.05). 3. The In-Ceram Alumina crowns had a significantly higher fracture strength than In-Ceram Spinell crowns in both methods(P<0.05). 4. Ther order of fracture strength was as followed : Celay In-Ceram Alumina, In-Ceram Alumina, Celay In-Ceram Spinell and In-Ceram Spinell crowns

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1996.11a
• /
• pp.72-73
• /
• 1996

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2002.11a
• /
• pp.113-113
• /
• 2002

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.36 no.2
• /
• pp.273-292
• /
• 1998

The purpose of this study was to evaluate marginal fit of four all-ceramic crown systems 1) conventional In-Ceram, 2) copy-milled In-Ceram using Celay system, 3) IPS Empress, 4) OPC(Optimal Pressable Ceramic). All ceramic crowns were made on epoxy dies. The fabricated crowns were sandblasted, cleaned with ultrasonic cleansing, silanated, and cemented with Bistite composite resin cement. the selected marginal areas of the crowns were the labial, lingual, mesial, and distal surface. Each selected area of surface was $0.6{\times}1.6mm$ in dimension. The image of each marginal area was captured to computer files using DT-55 Frame Grabber and light microscope connected CCD camera. The marginal gaps were measured every $70{\mu}m$ using computer image analysis program. The results obtained were summarized as follows : 1. The marginal fit of four all-ceramic crowns were significantly different from each other(p<0.01), and mean marginal fit values obtained were $31.42{\pm}16.52{\mu}m$ in conventional In-Ceram, $55.45{\pm}27.90{\mu}m$ in copy-milled In-Ceram using Celay system, $44.36{\pm}24.59{\mu}m$ in IPS Empress, $47.21{\pm}20.42{\mu}m$ in OPC. 2. In the marginal fit of conventional In-Ceraw and copy-milled In-Ceram crowns using Celay system there was no significant difference between mesiodistal and buccolingual surface, but in the marginal fit of IPS Empress and OPC crowns, there was significant difference between mesiodistal and buccolingual surface(p<0.01). 3. The marginal fit of four kinds of all-ceramic crowns was clinically acceptable.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.756-766
• /
• 1999

This study was performed to evaluate effect on color and opacity of 3 different copy-milled In-Ceram cores by glass infiltration and porcelain veneering. Color was evaluated by the $CIEL^*a^*b^*$ readings were recorded with a Colorimeter, Color difference value(${\Delta}E^*_{ab}$) was calculated and opacity was represented by the contrast ratio. The variance of each color parameter ($L^*,\;a^*,\;b^*$), color difference value, and opacity change after glass-infiltrated and after veneered with porcelain was compared. Three experimental groups were fabricated as follows. Group 1 (Alumina core) 15 Alumina blanks was infiltrated with originally marketed glass (A1) and veneered with porcelain(A1) Group 2 (modified Alumina core) : 15 Alumina blanks was infiltrated with its associated glass(S11) and veneered with porcelain(A1) Group 3 (Spinell core) : 15 Spinell blanks was infiltrated with originally developed glass(S11) and veneered with porcelain(A1). The results were as follows: 1. After glass infiltration, $L^*$ value showed decrease, $a^*$ value showed decrease only group 1(p<0.001) and $b^*$ value showed increase on group 1, increase on group 2, 3(p<0.001). 2. After porcelain veneering, $L^*$ value showed decrease(p<0.001), $a^*$ value showed increase on group 1, decrease on group 2(p<0.05) and $b^*$ value showed decrease on group 1, increase on group 2, 3 (p<0.001). 3. ${\Delta}E^*_{ab}$ between before and after glass infiltration was more than 13.77, and between after glass infiltration and after porcelain veneering more than 19.63. 4. After glass infiltration and porcelain veneering, Alumina showed the lowest $L^*,\;a^*$ value and highest $b^*$ value among 3 different groups (p<0.05). ${\Delta}E^*_{ab}$ between group 1-2, 1-3 was higher than that of group 2-3. 5. After glass infiltration, opacity showed decrease, Group 1 had the highest opacity(p<0.05), but no significant differences between group 2 and 3. Above results suggest that glass infiltration and porcelain veneering effects on color and opacity of In-Ceram core, and that modified In-Ceram Alumina uses single crowns or bridges like In-Ceram Spinell.

• Proceedings of the KACD Conference
• /
• 2001.05a
• /
• pp.235-237
• /
• 2001

;Dentistry has benefited from tremendous advances in technology with the introduction of new techniques and materials, and patients are aware that esthetic approaches in dentistry can change one's appearance. Increasingly. tooth-colored restorative materials have been used for restoration of posterior teeth. Tooth-colored restoration for posterior teeth can be divided into three categories: 1) the direct techniques that can be made in a single appointment and are an intraoral procedure utilizing composites: 2) the semidirect techniques that require both an intraoral and an extraoral procedure and are luted chairside utilizing composites: and 3) the indirect techniques that require several appointments and the expertise of a dental technician working with either composites or ceramics. But, resin restoration has inherent drawbacks of microleakage. polymerization shrinkage, thermal cycling problems. and wear in stress-bearing areas. On the other hand, Ceramic restorations have many advantages over resin restorations. Ceramic inlays are reported to have less leakage than resin restoration and to fit better. although marginal fidelity depends on technique and is laboratory dependent. Adhesion of luting resin is more reliable and durable to etched ceramic material than to treated resin composite. In view of color matching, periodontal health. resistance to abrasion, ceramic restoration is superior to resin restorationl. Materials which have been used for the fabrication of ceramic restorations are various. Conventional powder slurry ceramics are also available. Castable ceramics are produced by centrifugal casting of heat-treated glass ceramics. and machinable ceramics are feldspathic porcelains or cast glass ceramics which are milled using a CAD/CAM apparatus to produce inlays (for example, Cered. They may also be copy milled using the Celay apparatus. Pressable ceramics are produced from feldspathic porcelain which is supplied in ingot form and heated and moulded under pressure to produce a restoration. Infiltrated ceramics are another class of material which are available for use as ceramic inlays. An example is $In-Ceram^{\circledR}$(Vident. California, USA) which consists of a porous aluminum oxide or spinell core infiltrated with glass and subsequently veneered with feldspathic porcelain. In the 1980s. the development of compatible refractory materials made fabrication easier. and the development of adhesive resin cements greatly improved clinical success rates. This case report presents esthetic ceramic inlays for posterior teeth.teeth.