Marginal fit of full contour monolithic zirconia in different thicknesses and layered zirconia crowns

SURVIVAL RATE OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED, SINGLE-TOOTH RESTORATIONS BASED ON ZIRCONIA OR METAL ABUTMENT IN PATIENTS WITH TOOTH AGENESIS: A 5-YEARS PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL STUDY

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to investigate survival rate of zirconia versus metal abutments, and the secondary aim was clinical outcomes of all-ceramic versus metal-ceramic crowns on single-tooth implants.

METHODS

Patients with tooth-agenesis participated to previously published prospective clinical study with 3-year follow-up were recalled after 5 years. Biological variables included survival and success rate of implants, marginal bone level, modified Plaque and Sulcus Bleeding Index and biological complications. Technical variables included restoration survival rate, marginal adaptation and technical complications. The aesthetic outcome of crowns and peri-implant mucosa in addition to patient-reported outcome were recorded. Descriptive analysis, linear mixed model for quantitative data, or generalized linear mixed model for ordinal categorical data were applied; significance was set to 0.05.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients (mean age: 32.4 years), with 89 implants participated to the 5-years examination. The implants supported 50 zirconia abutments with 50 all-ceramic (AC) crown and 39 metal abutments with 29 metal-ceramic (MC) and 10 AC crowns. The Implant and restoration survival rate was 100% and 96%, respectively. No clinically relevant biological difference between implants supporting metal or zirconia abutments was registered. The technical complications were veneering fracture of AC-crowns (n = 3), crown loosening of MC-crowns (n = 4) and one abutment screw loosening (MC-crown on metal abutment). MC-crowns had significantly better marginal adaptation than AC-crowns (p = .01). AC-crowns had significantly better color and morphology than MC-crowns (p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconia-based single-tooth restorations are reliable alternative materials to metal-based restorations with favorable biological and aesthetic outcome, and few technical complications.

Evaluation of Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Crowns Fabricated with Three Different Zirconia CAD/CAM Materials

BACKGROUND

Marginal and internal adaptation are key factors that determine the clinical success of dental restorations.

AIM

The aim of this study is to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of crowns fabricated with three different CAD-CAM zirconia materials; two monolithic zirconia materials and one veneered zirconia copings in comparison with conventional metal-ceramic crowns.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-six extracted molars (n = 96) were selected. Teeth were randomly divided into four groups (n = 24), and the following restorations were fabricated: Metal-ceramic crowns (Control group) (Group CG); monolithic zirconia crowns (GC initial) (Group MZ1); monolithic zirconia crowns (InCoris TZI),(Group MZ2); bilayered zirconia crowns, cores (InCoris ZI) veneered with a low-fusing glass-ceramic (IPS Emax Ceram),(Group BZ). Internal and marginal adaptations were evaluated using the silicone replica technique. A total of 20 points were recorded for every tooth under the light microscope at 20x magnifications. Results were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the posthoc Tukey's test at a significance level of 0.01.

RESULTS

Marginal, marginal-internal, axial, and occlusal gaps between CG, MZ1, MZ2, and BZ crowns showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Monolithic zirconia groups showed better marginal adaptation compared with the veneered zirconia crowns.

Evaluation of the marginal fit of finish line designs of novel CAD/CAM restoration materials

Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare the marginal fit of crowns manufactured using different CAD/CAM materials on 2 different types of finish line design. Material and method: Tooth preparations were made by creating 2 different finish lines (rounded shoulder, chamfer) on an acrylic mandibular second premolar model. Impressions were taken on each preparation using polyvinylsiloxane impression material, and blocks with three different compositions including lithium disilicate (LDS), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS), and monolithic zirconia (MZ) (UP.CAD, Celtra Duo, and VITA YZ HT) were produced using a CAD/CAM (computer-aided-design and computer-aided-manufacturing) milling device (VHF R5) (n=10). The marginal gap values of the crown restorations were measured by the same operator using a stereomicroscope (LEICA DVM6). Histogram plots and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were used to test the normality of the distributions of the variables. The non-normally distributed (nonparametric) variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for two groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test for more than two groups. Results: The marginal gap values were compared between finish line designs separately for each material. Accordingly, the marginal gap values of the rounded shoulder finish line were smaller than those of the chamfer finish line in all materials. The marginal gap values were also compared among the materials separately for each finish line type. Accordingly, the marginal gap values of the VITA YZ HT material were smaller than those of the Celtra Duo (ZLS) and UP.CAD (LDS) materials for both finish line designs. There was no significant difference between Celtra Duo and UP.CAD. Conclusion: The finish line design is a factor that affects marginal fit. Monolithic zirconia is more appropriate for clinical use as it shows a better marginal fit compared to LDS and ZLS.