Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(01): 017-021
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688740
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Marginal Gap Evaluation of Metal Onlays and Resin Nanoceramic Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing Blocks Onlays

Nor Faharina Abdul Hamid
1   Restorative Dentistry Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Jalan Hospital, Selangor, Malaysia
,
Wan Zaripah Wan Bakar
2   Conservative and Prosthodontics Unit, School of Dental Sciences Health Campus, Universiti Sains, Kubang Kerian Kota Bahru, Kelantan, Malaysia
,
Zaihan Ariffin
2   Conservative and Prosthodontics Unit, School of Dental Sciences Health Campus, Universiti Sains, Kubang Kerian Kota Bahru, Kelantan, Malaysia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 June 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: Marginal Gap Evaluation of Metal Onlays and Resin Nanoceramic Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing Blocks OnlaysEur J Dent 2019; 13(01): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709086

Abstract

Objective This study was carried out to assess and compare the marginal gap of conventionally used metal onlays and new resin nanoceramic (RNC) (Lava Ultimate block) onlays.

Materials and Methods This is an in vitro study using two extracted sound human mandibular molars. One tooth was prepared to receive the metal onlays and another one for the RNC onlays which were fabricated using the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology. Twelve metals and 12 ceramic onlays were fabricated before they were placed at their respective preparation and examined under the Leica stereomicroscope, M125C (Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany) for a marginal analysis. The gap width was measured at 10 predefined landmarks which included 3 points on the buccal and lingual surfaces each and 2 points each on the mesial and distal surfaces, respectively.

Statistical Analysis Mann–Whitney post hoc test was used for statistical analysis (P ≤ 0.05).

Results Overall, the RNC onlays showed significant lower marginal gap with the exception of the landmarks 5 and 6 (on distolingual) and no significant difference at landmark 7 (on midlingual). It was observed that the marginal gap were all within the clinically acceptable limit of 120 μm.

Conclusions Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that the RNC CAD/CAM onlays are a promising alternative to the metal onlays.

Keywords

ceramics - computer-aided design - microleakage - minimally invasive dentistry - prosthetic dentistry/prosthodontics - restorative materials
 

  • References

  • 1 Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62 (04) 405-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Addi S, Hedayati-Khams A, Poya A, Sjögren G. Interface gap size of manually and CAD/CAM-manufactured ceramic inlays/onlays in vitro. J Dent 2002; 30 (01) 53-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37 (11) 866-876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Groten M, Axmann D, Pröbster L, Weber H. Determination of the minimum number of marginal gap measurements required for practical in-vitro testing. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83 (01) 40-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971; 131 (03) 107-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rastogi A, Kamble V. Comparative analysis of the clinical techniques used in evaluation of marginal accuracy of cast restoration using stereomicroscopy as gold standard. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3 (02) 69-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lofstrom LH, Barakat MM. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of clinically cemented cast gold restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61 (06) 664-669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Martínez-Rus F, Suárez MJ, Rivera B, Pradíes G. Evaluation of the absolute marginal discrepancy of zirconia-based ceramic copings. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 105 (02) 108-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Brackett SE. Learning. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. 3rd ed.. Vol. 10. University of Michigan, USA: US Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 1997: 40
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J 2011; 56 (Suppl. 01) 84-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 3M ESPE. Technical Product Profile: Lava™ Ultimate CAD CAM Restorative. 3M ESPE; USA: 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Richter WA, Ueno H. Relationship of crown margin placement to gingival inflammation. J Prosthet Dent 1973; 30 (02) 156-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Felton DA, Kanoy BE, Bayne SC, Wirthman GP. Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65 (03) 357-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Seymour JG. A simplified technique for the tooth preparation of onlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1987; 57 (01) 9-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 da Costa JB, Pelogia F, Hagedorn B, Ferracane JL. Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D. Oper Dent 2010; 35 (03) 324-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nawafleh NA, Mack F, Evans J, Mackay J, Hatamleh MM. Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review. J Prosthodont 2013; 22 (05) 419-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fransson B, Oilo G, Gjeitanger R. The fit of metal-ceramic crowns, a clinical study. Dent Mater 1985; 1 (05) 197-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Assif D, Antopolski B, Helft M, Kaffe I. Comparison of methods of clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of complete cast gold crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 54 (01) 20-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Anusavice KJ, Phillips RW, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed.. USA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29 (05) 481-508
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008; 204 (09) 505-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966; 16 (02) 297-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Reich S, Gozdowski S, Trentzsch L, Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U. Marginal fit of heat-pressed vs. CAD/CAM processed all-ceramic onlays using a milling unit prototype. Oper Dent 2008; 33 (06) 644-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar