Clinical Specialist, Department of Restorative Dentistry, National Guard Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Clinical Professor, Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017 Feb;29(1):49-58. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12271. Epub 2016 Sep 29.
To evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of CAD/CAM lithium-disilicate inlay restorations fabricated by two milling systems (Five and Three-axis), and a traditional heat-press technique.
Fifteen premolar teeth with an MOD cavity preparation were fabricated. Lithium-disilicate inlay restorations were obtained by three fabrication techniques and fitted to their dies (n = 15/gp) as follows: Group-1, three-axis milling system, Group-2, five-axis milling system, Group-3, conventional heat-press technique. Gaps were evaluated by X-ray microtomography. Marginal gap (MG), occlusal-marginal gap (OMG), proximal-marginal gap (PMG), gingival-marginal gap (GMG), absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD), axial-internal gap (AIG), and occlusal-internal gap (OIG) were evaluated at 120 different points per inlay. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for post-hoc testes and the Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for multiple comparisons (α = 0.007).
The heat-press group demonstrated significantly smaller mean-values amongst all outcomes compared with CAD/CAM groups except for GMG, where there was no statistically significant difference between groups in the ANOVA (p = 0.042). Within the CAD/CAM groups, the five-axis group showed significantly lower OMG mean-value compared with the three-axis group p < 0.001, and lower AIG mean-value compared with the three-axis group p < 0.001. There was no significant difference between the five-axis and the three-axis groups' AMD, MG, PMG, and OIG locations.
Different fabrication techniques affected the marginal and internal adaptation of ceramic inlay restorations. The heat-press group showed the best marginal and internal adaptation results; however, in every group, all samples were within the clinically acceptable MG limit (100 μm).
The marginal fit and internal adaptation of inlay ceramic restorations fabricated by a five-axis milling system have not been tested or compared with those fabricated by three-axis machines and the conventional heat-press method. The preferred method of inlay fabrication, whether in the lab or chair side, may be influenced by the results of this study and could affect future clinical decision-making. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:49-58, 2017).
评估两种铣削系统(五轴和三轴)和传统热压技术制作 CAD/CAM 锂硅玻璃陶瓷嵌体修复体的边缘和内部适合性。
制备 15 颗具有 MOD 腔预备的前磨牙。通过三种制作技术获得锂硅玻璃陶瓷嵌体修复体,并将其装配到各自的模具中(每组 15 个):组 1,三轴铣削系统;组 2,五轴铣削系统;组 3,传统热压技术。通过 X 射线断层扫描评估间隙。在每个嵌体的 120 个不同点评估边缘间隙(MG)、牙合边缘间隙(OMG)、近中边缘间隙(PMG)、龈边缘间隙(GMG)、绝对边缘差异(AMD)、轴向内部间隙(AIG)和牙合内部间隙(OIG)。采用重复测量方差分析对数据进行分析。进行事后两两比较,并使用 Bonferroni 校正进行多重比较(α=0.007)。
与 CAD/CAM 组相比,热压组在所有结果中的平均值均显著较小,除 GMG 外,各组之间的 ANOVA 无统计学差异(p=0.042)。在 CAD/CAM 组内,五轴组的 OMG 平均值明显低于三轴组(p<0.001),AIG 平均值明显低于三轴组(p<0.001)。五轴组和三轴组的 AMD、MG、PMG 和 OIG 位置无统计学差异。
不同的制作技术影响陶瓷嵌体修复体的边缘和内部适合性。热压组显示出最佳的边缘和内部适合性结果;然而,在每组中,所有样本均在临床可接受的 MG 限值(100μm)内。
尚未对五轴铣削系统制作的嵌体陶瓷修复体的边缘拟合和内部适合性进行测试或与三轴机器和传统热压方法制作的修复体进行比较。嵌体制作的首选方法,无论是在实验室还是椅旁,都可能受到本研究结果的影响,并可能影响未来的临床决策。