Marginal fit of leucite-glass pressable ceramic restorations and ceramic-pressed-to-metal restorations.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Fabricating a feldspathic porcelain margin on a metal-ceramic restoration with a clinically acceptable marginal fit has proven to be a technique-sensitive procedure. Pressable ceramics are advocated to solve this problem.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal adaptation of a pressable ceramic system when used with both all-ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns, with a traditional metal-ceramic restoration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A 1.5-mm, 360-degree chamfer margin was prepared on a typodont maxillary central incisor. Polyether impressions were made and poured in a Type IV dental stone, and the following crowns were fabricated on individual dies: 15 metal ceramic restorations (MCR) (Ceramco II, Ceramco, and Argelite 60), 15 pressed-to-metal restorations (PTM) (CPC-MK, and Argelite 60), and 15 pressed ceramic restorations (PCR) (CPC-MK). The marginal fit of the crowns was evaluated every 90 degrees around the crown margin circumference under a microscope at original magnification x 45. A 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare data (alpha=.05).

RESULTS

The mean marginal discrepancy for MCRs was 94 +/- 41 microm, for PTMs, 88 +/- 29 microm, and for PCRs, 81 +/- 25 microm. The 1-way ANOVA showed no significant difference between groups ( P =.568).

CONCLUSION

The marginal fit of pressed-to-metal (PTMs) and pressed all-ceramic crowns (PCRs) was similar to that of traditional metal-ceramic crowns (MCRs).