Sachs Caroline, Groesser Julian, Stadelmann Markus, Schweiger Josef, Erdelt Kurt, Beuer Florian
Department of Prosthodontics, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Master Dental Technician, Stadelmann Dental, Munich, Germany.
Dent Mater. 2014 Aug;30(8):817-23. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.05.001. Epub 2014 Jun 2.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of single crowns, compared to 14-unit frameworks made of translucent yttria-stabilized zirconia. We hypothesized that there is an influence of the type of restoration on the marginal and internal fit.
Eight teeth (FDI locations 17, 15, 13, 11, 21, 23, 25 and 27) of a typodont maxillary model were provided with a chamfer preparation to accommodate a 14-unit prosthesis or four single crowns (SCs). Ten 14-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and 40 single crowns were fabricated using a computer aided design (CAD)/computer aided manufacturing (CAM) system with pre-sintered translucent yttria-stabilized zirconia blanks. The restorations were cemented onto twenty master dies, which were sectioned into four pieces each. Then, the marginal and internal fits were examined using a binocular microscope. In order to detect the differences between the two types of restorations a non-parameteric test (Mann-Whitney-U) was carried out; to detect differences between the abutment teeth and the abutment surfaces non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis) and pairwise post hoc analyses (Mann-Whitney-U) were performed after testing data for normal distribution (method according to Shapiro-Wilk). Level of significance was set at 5%.
The mean (SD) marginal opening gap dimensions were 18 μm (14) for the single crowns and 29 μm (27) for the 14-unit FDPs (p<0.001). Abutment 21 of the FDPs showed statistical differences concerning the location of the teeth in both marginal and internal fit (p<0.001). The measured gaps (types I-IV) revealed statistical differences between all types, when comparing SCs to the FDPs (p<0.001).
Single crowns showed significantly better accuracy of fit, compared to the 14-unit FDPs. However, both restorations showed clinically acceptable marginal and internal fit.
本研究旨在评估单冠与由半透明氧化钇稳定氧化锆制成的14单位框架的边缘适合性和内部适合性。我们假设修复体类型对边缘适合性和内部适合性有影响。
在一个模型上颌模型的八颗牙齿(FDI编号17、15、13、11、21、23、25和27)上制备肩台,以容纳一个14单位的修复体或四个单冠(SC)。使用计算机辅助设计(CAD)/计算机辅助制造(CAM)系统,用预烧结的半透明氧化钇稳定氧化锆坯块制作十个14单位的固定义齿(FDP)和40个单冠。将修复体粘固到二十个主模型上,每个主模型切成四块。然后,使用双目显微镜检查边缘适合性和内部适合性。为了检测两种修复体之间的差异,进行了非参数检验(曼-惠特尼U检验);为了检测基牙和基牙表面之间的差异,在对数据进行正态分布检验(根据夏皮罗-威尔克方法)后,进行了非参数检验(克鲁斯卡尔-沃利斯检验)和两两事后分析(曼-惠特尼U检验)。显著性水平设定为5%。
单冠的平均(标准差)边缘开口间隙尺寸为18μm(14),14单位FDP的为29μm(27)(p<0.001)。FDP的基牙21在边缘适合性和内部适合性方面,在牙齿位置上均显示出统计学差异(p<0.001)。在比较单冠和FDP时,测量的间隙(I-IV型)在所有类型之间均显示出统计学差异(p<0.001)。
与14单位FDP相比,单冠显示出明显更好的适合精度。然而,两种修复体在临床上均显示出可接受的边缘适合性和内部适合性。