Marginal Discrepancy of Five Contemporary Dental Ceramics for Anterior Restorations

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to compare marginal accuracy of five contemporary all-ceramic crowns indicated for anterior restorations.

Materials and Methods A master die of maxillary central incisor was prepared for all-ceramic crown and duplicated to produce 50 replicas of epoxy resin material. Five ceramic materials were used to mill the crowns (n = 10). All crowns were manufactured following the same digital workflow; same master die, scanning unit and design software, and the recommended manufacturing protocol. Final seating of crown was secured by a small droplet of temporary cement on its incisal edge. Marginal accuracy was evaluated by scanning electronic microscope with a magnification of 300 × . Vertical marginal gap was measured for each crown at predefined four points.

Statistical Analysis One-way analysis of variance was used to test differences between groups and Tukey test was used for multiple comparisons between group combinations. A level of significance at 95% was set for all statistics.

Results The highest mean marginal gap and mean maximum gap calculated were for the e.max CAD crowns (49.2 µm, 87.6 µm), while the lowest values were for the Cercon xt crowns (10.2 µm, 21.7 µm). The mean marginal gap and the mean maximum gap of the e.max CAD crowns were statistically significantly greater than those of all other groups (p < 0.05). However, the differences between all other combinations were insignificant (p > 0.05).

Conclusion Marginal accuracy of lithium disilicate crowns is clinically acceptable. Zirconia and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate materials can produce a greater level of marginal accuracy compared to lithium disilicate.

Keywords

marginal fit - marginal accuracy - CAD/CAM - zirconia - lithium silicate

Introduction

Marginal accuracy of fixed prosthodontics is heavily researched as it determines their clinical success.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] A maximum cement film thickness of 25 to 40 µm was identified as set by the American Dental Association (ADA).[9] In spite of the absence of a clear evidence that a certain method of fabrication provides a consistently superior marginal fit,[10] a gap of 25 to 40 µm is hard to achieve with the conventional fabrication processes because of the various materials and clinical and laboratory procedures involved. However, the increased popularity of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technologies and the development of novel microstructures of ceramic materials have improved the fixed prosthodontics practice including the achievable marginal gap.[11] [12] [13]

Aesthetics has increasingly become a great influence in choosing restorative materials even in the posterior region. Lithium disilicate (LD) might be considered the most attractive monolithic all-ceramic alternative for anterior restorations because of its great esthetic combined with high strength. The high translucency of LD enable the production of natural results even in cervical portion of the restoration where in the conventional metal-ceramic restorations, a dark shadow is likely to be visible.[14] Translucent zirconia and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) are relatively new alternatives indicated for anterior restorations. Translucent zirconia was developed with increased yttria content to up to 5 mol% to overcome the aesthetic disadvantage of the material.[15] Sen and Isler[16] found that extra translucent zirconia produces comparable optical properties to that of LD. Cho et al[17] showed that compared to LD, 5Y-ZP had 80% translucency at 0.8 mm thickness and 89% at 1.5 mm thickness. Similarly, ZLS can produce satisfactory optical properties.[18] The material composed of lithium silicate as the main crystalline phase in a vitreous matrix reinforced with 10% dissolved zirconia (ZrO2).[18] The highly dispersed ZrO2 content is responsible for the generation of significantly more crystallization nuclei, which is supposed to present a higher ratio of the glass phase when compared with the conventional LD.[19] However, little is known about the marginal fitting of these materials compared to that of LD.

Several review papers on the marginal adaptation of fixed restorations showed that it is inconsistent, variant, and directly affected by the experimental protocol employed in investigating it.[20] [21] These are caused by variations in study designs, measurement methods, and the adopted definitions of the marginal fitting. Therefore, comparing marginal discrepancy values across studies should be made with great caution. Instead, such comparisons could be made for different crown systems in one investigation under standardized method. To the authors' knowledge, there has been no previous research which compared the marginal adaptation of the five crown systems in one study. Hence, this study aimed to measure and compare marginal accuracy of five contemporary ceramic materials used for anterior restorations. Our null hypothesis indicates no statistically significant differences in their marginal gap.

Materials and Methods

Master Die and Crowns Fabrication

A master die (Nissin Dental Products INC, Kyoto, Japan) of maxillary central incisor was prepared following guidelines for all-ceramic crown preparation with an axial/incisal reduction of 1.5 mm and a chamfer of 1 mm width. The amount of tooth reduction was controlled using an index of the same tooth before preparation. The master die was marked with indentations placed external to the preparation finish line at mid-labial, mid-palatal, mid-mesial, and mid-distal points to standardize gap measurement points ([Fig. 1]). Fifty impressions of the master die were made using silicone impression material (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States) and molded with epoxy resin die material (Exakto-Form, Bredent, Germany) to produce 50 replicas of the master die.

Fig. 1 (A) Vertical gap measured. (B) The arrow shows the indentation on the die identifying the point of measurement.

The master die was sprayed with CEREC Optispray (Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) and scanned by Cerec inEos X5 (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). Scanning data were saved in STL (Standard Triangular Language) format to be used for the designing of the all-ceramic crowns (inLab CAM SW16, Dentsply Sirona) starting with the biogeneric design technique. The CAD system permits the adjustment of different parameters such as restorative material thickness and cement space. Therefore, the minimum thickness of the designed crown was set at 1 mm to correspond for the tooth preparation recommended for anterior ceramic crown, and the cement space was set at 50 µm.[22] Then, the designed crown was milled from five dental ceramics ([Table 1]) using 5-axis milling machine (MC X5, Dentsply Sirona). Cercon xt and e.max ZirCAD were dry milled while the e.max CAD, Vita Suprinity and Celtra Duo were wet milled. The fit of crowns onto replica dies was controlled by a stereomicroscope (Wild M3C, Wild, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) with a magnification factor of 10. Cercon xt and e.max ZirCAD crowns were sintered following the manufacturer's guidelines (in fire HTC speed, Dentsply Sirona). The e.max CAD and Vita Suprinity crowns were crystallized in Programat EP 3010 (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). The crowns were glazed and secured to epoxy resin dies with a droplet of temporary cement (RelyX Temp NE; 3M-ESPE) on the incisal edge.[23]

Table 1 Details of the CAD/CAM materials evaluated in the study

Ceramic material	Composition	Manufacturer
e.max CAD	∼40 vol.% of ∼0.5 μm grain-size, lithium-metasilicate crystalline phase in a lithium disilicate glass	Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein
e.max zirCAD	Yttrium oxide- (yttria-) stabilized zirconium oxide (Y-TZP).	Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein
Celtra Duo	Lithium silicate glass with 10% dissolved zirconia. It also contain diphosphorus pentoxide to nucleate lithium metasilicate crystallization	Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany
Vita Suprinity	Lithium silicate glass with 10% dissolved zirconia. It also contain diphosphorus pentoxide to nucleate lithium metasilicate crystallization	Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany
Cercon xt	Yttrium oxide- (yttria-) stabilized zirconium oxide (Y-TZP).	Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany

Abbreviation: CAD/CAM, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing.

Fit Measurement

Marginal accuracy of the restorations was evaluated by scanning electronic microscope (SEM) (JSM-6610LV, JEOL, United States) with a magnification of 300 × . Fit evaluation was made by measuring the vertical gap from the external crown margin to the opposite preparation line ([Fig. 1]). Specimens were gold-coated by a Q15RS metallizer (Quorum Technologies, Sussex, United Kingdom) before SEM examination. The measurements were taken by fixing the specimens in a custom-made jig ([Fig. 2]) placed perpendicular to the optical axis of the microscope. The marginal fit was measured for each crown at the predetermined four points.

Fig. 2 A custom-made jig to hold the crowns during marginal gap measurement.

Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed using SPSS software 23.0 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois, United States). Shapiro–Wilk test confirmed the normal distribution of data. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for the marginal gap and maximum gap values were performed. One-way analysis of variance was used to test differences between groups and Tukey test was used for multiple comparisons between group combinations. A level of significance at 95% was set for all statistics.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and the mean maximum gap values of different materials are presented in [Table 2]. There was a statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.5) in both mean marginal gaps and mean maximum gaps. The mean marginal gap of the e.max crowns (49.2 µm) was statistically significantly greater than those of all other groups (p < 0.05). However, when the e.max CAD group was excluded, the differences between all other combinations were insignificant. Similar statistical results were obtained for the mean maximum gap comparisons where the highest value was for the e.max CAD (87.6 µm), which was statistically significantly greater than all other groups while all other combinations showed no significant differences.

Table 2 Mean marginal gap, standard deviation, and mean maximum gap of studied crowns

	e.max CAD	e.max ZirCAD	Celtra Duo	Vita Suprinity	Cercon xt
Mean marginal gap	49.3a	17.7b	13.2b	15.3b	10.2b
Standard deviation	33.4	12.6	17.0	14.0	9.0
Mean maximum gap	87.6a	32.9b	29.0b	32.1b	21.7b

Note: Different superscript in the same row indicates significant difference.

Discussion

One spot with a large marginal discrepancy can determines the clinical risk of restoration.[24] Therefore, in addition to the mean marginal gap, the mean maximum gap values of the five tested material were reported and compared. There was statistically significant difference between the tested materials; hence, we rejected the null hypothesis.

Results showed that e.max ZirCAD and Cercon xt have a greater marginal precision compared to LD (e.max CAD) and were well below the maximum cement space of clinical acceptability identified by ADA.[9] Marginal gap values ranged between 0 and 75  μm were recorded for zirconia crowns[25] [26] which is well within the acceptable range of 120 μm suggested by McLean and von Fraunhofer.[27] This might be linked to the precision of the CAD/CAM system in milling zirconia restorations, possibly because dental CAD/CAM systems were originally developed to process polycrystalline materials.[28] A recent systematic review found that the performance of a specific CAD/CAM system in terms of marginal adaptation is influenced by the type of restorative material.[11] Similarly, the two commercial examples of the ZLS (Vita Suprinity and Celtra Duo) presented superior results compared to e.max CAD. A previous study[29] agrees with our results as Vita Suprinity had significantly lower marginal discrepancy value (77 μm) than that of e.max CAD (130 μm). Though the mean marginal discrepancy values reported[29] were noticeably higher than those of the current study (Vita Suprinity, 15.5 and e.max CAD 49.2). On the contrary, Hasanzade et al[30] reported no significant difference between the two materials. Contradictions in gaps reported be different studies are expected and attributed to variances in study designs and protocols followed.

LD crowns showed the highest gap measured among the tested systems, which might influence its clinical survival compared to other systems.[4] A wide range of mean marginal discrepancy values of e.max CAD crowns were reported in previous studies with some of them being, according to McLean and von Fraunhofer,[27] clinically unacceptable: 87,[31] 147.56,[32] 63.73, 88.64,[33] 125.46 to 135.59,[34] and 132.2 μm.[35] However, as mentioned earlier, these variations across studies are expected. The higher marginal discrepancy value of the e.max CAD crowns can be linked to ceramic shrinkage at the margin during crystallization firing.[36] Additionally, Fraga et al[37] found that surface roughness and defects after milling LD were more than those observed in zirconia.

Theoretically, the precision of the designing and milling produced by contemporary CAD/CAM technology should produce a restoration with a marginal accuracy of zero discrepancy all around the margin, but this is known to be practically impossible. Though our SEM images showed a closed margin at several measurement points ([Fig. 3]), which were more frequent in the zirconia systems. Boitelle et al[12] in a systematic review suggested that the available CAD/CAM technology delivers dental restorations with marginal discrepancy values of less than 80 µm, which is confirmed by the current study. In fact, this study found that the average maximum gap of all material except the e.max CAD were within the maximum range of the cement thickness identified by the ADA.[9]

Fig. 3 Perfectly closed margins. (A) Celtra Duo, (B) Vita Suprinity, (C) e.max ZirCAD, and (D) Cercon xt.

All crown systems in this study showed a clinically acceptable mean marginal gap and mean maximum gap of less than 120 μm.[27] The clinically acceptable marginal gap of fixed restorations has been a controversial subject in the literature.[9] [27] [38] [39] A value of 120 μm which was established in 1971[27] is the most commonly cited value for clinical acceptability. Though such value should be revised as a marginal opening of 30 µm has been reported to encourage secondary caries formation.[4]

In the current study, marginal fit was evaluated by measuring the vertical gap at the margin which might be considered a limitation because the absolute marginal discrepancy is the measurement that represents the total crown misfit at specific point, both vertically and horizontally.[40] However, the vertical and horizontal measurements have different clinical implications.[30]

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the marginal accuracy of LD crowns is clinically acceptable. Zirconia and ZLS materials can produce a greater level of marginal accuracy compared to LD.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Deanship of Research, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan. The authors are also grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia for the in-kind support through Engineer Abdullah Bugshan research chair for Dental and Oral Rehabilitation.

• References

• 1 Bader JD, Rozier RG, McFall Jr WT, Ramsey DL. Effect of crown margins on periodontal conditions in regularly attending patients. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65 (01) 75-79
• 2 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
• 3 Knoernschild KL, Campbell SD. Periodontal tissue responses after insertion of artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84 (05) 492-498
• 4 Maske TT, Hollanders ACC, Kuper NK, Bronkhorst EM, Cenci MS, Huysmans MCDNJM. A threshold gap size for in situ secondary caries lesion development. J Dent 2019; 80: 36-40
• 5 Rekow D, Thompson VP. Near-surface damage–a persistent problem in crowns obtained by computer-aided design and manufacturing. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2005; 219 (04) 233-243
• 6 Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 2015; 31 (06) 603-623
• 7 Kricheldorf F, Bueno CRS, Amaral WDS, Junior JFS, Filho HN. Analysis of vertical marginal discrepancy in feldspathic porcelain crowns manufactured with different CAD/CAM systems: closed and open. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (01) 123-128
• 8 Habib SR, Ansari AS, Bajunaid SO, Alshahrani A, Javed MQ. Evaluation of film thickness of crown disclosing agents and their comparison with cement film thickness after final cementation. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (02) 224-232
• 9 American Dental Association. ANSI/ADA Specification No. 8 for Zinc Phosphate Cement. Guide to Dental Materials and Devices.. Chicago, IL: American Dental Association; 1970
• 10 Abdul Hamid NF, Wan Bakar WZ, Ariffin Z. Marginal gap evaluation of metal onlays and resin nanoceramic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing blocks onlays. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (01) 17-21
• 11 Papadiochou S, Pissiotis AL. Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: a systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (04) 545-551
• 12 Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil 2014; 41 (11) 853-874
• 13 Ghodsi S, Alikhasi M, Soltani N. Marginal discrepancy of single implant-supported metal copings fabricated by various CAD/CAM and conventional techniques using different materials. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (04) 563-568
• 14 Malchiodi L, Zotti F, Moro T, De Santis D, Albanese M. Clinical and esthetical evaluation of 79 lithium disilicate multilayered anterior veneers with a medium follow-up of 3 years. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (04) 581-588
• 15 Zhang Y, Lawn BR. Novel zirconia materials in dentistry. J Dent Res 2018; 97 (02) 140-147
• 16 Sen N, Isler S. Microstructural, physical, and optical characterization of high-translucency zirconia ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123 (05) 761-768
• 17 Cho YE, Lim YJ, Han JS, Yeo IL, Yoon HI. Effect of Yttria content on the translucency and masking ability of Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13 (21) 4726
• 18 Porojan L, Vasiliu R-D, Bîrdeanu M-I, Porojan S-D. Surface characterization and optical properties of reinforced dental glass-ceramics related to artificial aging. Molecules 2020; 25 (15) 3407
• 19 Riquieri H, Monteiro JB, Viegas DC, Campos TMB, de Melo RM, de Siqueira Ferreira Anzaloni Saavedra G. Impact of crystallization firing process on the microstructure and flexural strength of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramics. Dent Mater 2018; 34 (10) 1483-1491
• 20 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
• 21 Contrepois M, Soenen A, Bartala M, Laviole O. Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 110 (06) 447-454 .e10
• 22 Kale E, Seker E, Yilmaz B, Özcelik TB. Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116 (06) 890-895
• 23 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
• 24 Rinke S, Fornefett D, Gersdorff N, Lange K, Roediger M. Multifactorial analysis of the impact of different manufacturing processes on the marginal fit of zirconia copings. Dent Mater J 2012; 31 (04) 601-609
• 25 Lee B, Oh KC, Haam D, Lee J-H, Moon H-S. Evaluation of the fit of zirconia copings fabricated by direct and indirect digital scanning procedures. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120 (02) 225-231
• 26 Pilo R, Folkman M, Arieli A, Levartovsky S. Marginal fit and retention strength of zirconia crowns cemented by self-adhesive resin cements. Oper Dent 2018; 43 (02) 151-161
• 27 McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971; 131 (03) 107-111
• 28 Riccitiello F, Amato M, Leone R, Spagnuolo G, Sorrentino R. In vitro evaluation of the marginal fit and internal adaptation of zirconia and lithium disilicate single crowns: micro-CT comparison between different manufacturing procedures. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 160-172
• 29 Yildirim G, Uzun IH, Keles A. Evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of hybrid and nanoceramic systems with microcomputed tomography: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118 (02) 200-207
• 30 Hasanzade M, Sahebi M, Zarrati S, Payaminia L, Alikhasi M. Comparative evaluation of the internal and marginal adaptations of CAD/CAM endocrowns and crowns fabricated from three different materials. Int J Prosthodont 2021; 34 (03) 341-347
• 31 Dolev E, Bitterman Y, Meirowitz A. Comparison of marginal fit between CAD-CAM and hot-press lithium disilicate crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (01) 124-128
• 32 Al Hamad KQ, Al Quran FA, AlJalam SA, Baba NZ. Comparison of the accuracy of fit of metal, zirconia, and lithium disilicate crowns made from different manufacturing techniques. J Prosthodont 2019; 28 (05) 497-503
• 33 Kwong B, Dudley J. A comparison of the marginal gaps of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by two different intraoral scanners. Aust Dent J 2020; 65 (02) 150-157
• 34 Al Hamad KQ, Al Rashdan BA, Al Omari WM, Baba NZ. Comparison of the fit of lithium disilicate crowns made from conventional, digital, or conventional/digital techniques. J Prosthodont 2019; 28 (02) e580-e586
• 35 Azarbal A, Azarbal M, Engelmeier RL, Kunkel TC. Marginal fit comparison of CAD/CAM crowns milled from two different materials. J Prosthodont 2018; 27 (05) 421-428
• 36 Gold SA, Ferracane JL, da Costa J. Effect of crystallization firing on marginal gap of CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate crowns. J Prosthodont 2018; 27 (01) 63-66
• 37 Fraga S, Amaral M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF, Kleverlaan CJ, May LG. Impact of machining on the flexural fatigue strength of glass and polycrystalline CAD/CAM ceramics. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (11) 1286-1297
• 38 Christensen GJ. Clinical and research advancements in cast-gold restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1971; 25 (01) 62-68
• 39 Dedmon HW. Disparity in expert opinions on size of acceptable margin openings. Oper Dent 1982; 7 (03) 97-101
• 40 Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62 (04) 405-408

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
04. Januar 2023