Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Advanced Specialty Education Program in Prosthodontics, Loma Linda University, School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA.
J Prosthodont. 2019 Jun;28(5):497-503. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13029. Epub 2019 Feb 13.
To evaluate the accuracy of fit of metal, lithium disilicate, and zirconia crowns, which were produced using different manufacturing techniques.
Ten patients in need of a molar crown were recruited. Eight crowns were fabricated for each patient: 2 zirconia, 3 lithium disilicate (e.max), and 3 metal-ceramic crowns using conventional, conventional/digital, and digital techniques. Marginal, axial, and occlusal gaps were measured using a replica technique. Replicas were sectioned mesiodistally and buccolingually and were observed under a stereomicroscope. A total of 32 measurements for each crown replica at 3 different points (12 marginal, 12 axial, and 8 occlusal) were performed. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests.
Marginal means ranged from 116.39 ± 32.76 µm for the conventional metal-ceramic group to 147.56 ± 31.56 µm for the digital e.max group. The smallest axial gap was recorded for the digital zirconia group (76.19 ± 23.94 µm), while the largest axial gap was recorded for the conventional e.max (101.80 ± 19.81 µm) and conventional/digital metal-ceramic groups (101.80 ± 35.31 µm). The conventional e.max crowns had the smallest occlusal mean gap (185.59 ± 59.09 µm), while the digital e.max group had the largest occlusal mean gap (295.38 ± 67.80 µm). Type of crown had no significant effect on marginal (p = 0.07, f = 2.71), axial (p = 0.75, f = 0.29), or occlusal fit (p = 0.099, f = 2.4), while fabrication method had a significant effect on axial gap only (p = 0.169, f = 1.82, p = 0.003, f = 6.21, and p = 0.144, f = 2 for marginal, axial, and occlusal fit, respectively). Digital fabrication produced significantly smaller axial gaps than the conventional method (p = 0.02), and the conventional digital method (p = 0.005).
The type of crown and method of manufacturing had no effect on the marginal and occlusal gap of single posterior crown, while the method of manufacturing had a significant effect on the axial gap. The digital method produced the smallest axial fit in comparison with the other methods, while the type of crown had no effect on the axial gap.
评估使用不同制造技术生产的金属、锂硅和氧化锆牙冠的拟合精度。
招募了 10 名需要磨牙冠的患者。每位患者制作了 8 个牙冠：2 个氧化锆、3 个锂硅（e.max）和 3 个金属陶瓷牙冠，使用传统、传统/数字和数字技术。使用复制技术测量边缘、轴向和咬合间隙。复制件被沿近远中向和颊舌向切开，并在立体显微镜下观察。在 3 个不同点（12 个边缘、12 个轴向和 8 个咬合）对每个牙冠复制件进行了总共 32 次测量。使用双向方差分析和 Tukey HSD 检验进行统计分析。
边缘平均值范围从传统金属陶瓷组的 116.39 ± 32.76µm 到数字 e.max 组的 147.56 ± 31.56µm。数字氧化锆组记录的最小轴向间隙为 76.19 ± 23.94µm，而传统 e.max（101.80 ± 19.81µm）和传统/数字金属陶瓷组记录的最大轴向间隙为 101.80 ± 35.31µm。传统 e.max 牙冠的最小咬合平均值间隙为 185.59 ± 59.09µm，而数字 e.max 组的最大咬合平均值间隙为 295.38 ± 67.80µm。牙冠类型对边缘（p = 0.07，f = 2.71）、轴向（p = 0.75，f = 0.29）或咬合拟合（p = 0.099，f = 2.4）均无显著影响，而制造方法仅对轴向间隙有显著影响（p = 0.169，f = 1.82，p = 0.003，f = 6.21，p = 0.144，f = 2 用于边缘、轴向和咬合拟合，分别）。数字化制造产生的轴向间隙明显小于传统方法（p = 0.02）和传统数字化方法（p = 0.005）。
牙冠类型和制造方法对单个后牙冠的边缘和咬合间隙没有影响，而制造方法对轴向间隙有显著影响。与其他方法相比，数字化方法产生的轴向拟合最小，而牙冠类型对轴向间隙没有影响。
