Baig Mirza Rustum, Akbar Aqdar A, Sabti Mohammad Y, Behbehani Zahra
Department of Restorative Sciences (Prosthodontics), Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Department of General Dental Practice, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
J Prosthodont. 2022 Jul;31(6):502-511. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13438. Epub 2021 Oct 19.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the marginal and internal fit of monolithic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ZLS (Vita Suprinity) glass ceramic porcelain laminate veneers (PLVs), in terms of marginal and internal gap widths, in comparison to monolithic lithium disilicate (LDS) [IPS e.max CAD] CAD/CAM veneers, and, also, to analyze the effect of incisal preparation designs (butt joint and chamfer), on the marginal and internal fit accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty dental stone dies poured from impressions made of two master metal dies with different incisal preparation designs were scanned to produce digital models. Forty ceramic veneers were designed and milled using the virtual models-10 ZLS butt joint, 10 ZLS chamfer, 10 LDS butt joint, and 10 LDS chamfer. The monolithic ceramic veneers produced were then subjected to marginal and internal gap width evaluation using X-ray nano-computed tomography and computerized digital analysis (n = 10). Descriptive analyses of data were performed and the influence of "material" and "preparation design" on the marginal and internal fit of veneers was assessed using 2-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Bonferroni post-hoc multiple comparison tests were used to further analyze the interactions between the material and preparation design after adjusting the α value by Holm-Bonferroni method (α = 0.01). RESULTS: Mean marginal and internal gaps for ZLS PLVs were 65 ±11 μm and 112 ±14 μm for butt joint, and 100 ±24 μm and 100 ±21 μm for chamfer, respectively. Corresponding values for LDS PLVs were 78 ±25 μm and 114 ±17 μm for butt joint, and 104 ±18 μm and 106 ±7 μm for chamfer. Marginal gap and internal gap differences between ZLS and LDS PLVs were not significant (marginal gap: F = 1.786, p = 0.190; internal gap: F = 0.807, p = 0.375). However, the preparation designs (butt joint and chamfer) differed significantly in terms of marginal gaps (F = 23.797, p = 0.000), but not internal gaps (F = 3.703; p = 0.059). CONCLUSIONS: Butt joint margins produced better marginal accuracy in terms of marginal gap, compared to chamfers, for ZLS CAD/CAM laminate veneers.
目的：与整体式二硅酸锂（LDS）[IPS e.max CAD]计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造（CAD/CAM）贴面相比，根据边缘和内部间隙宽度，评估整体式计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造（CAD/CAM）ZLS（维他灵思）玻璃陶瓷瓷贴面（PLV）的边缘和内部适合性，并分析切端预备设计（对接和倒角）对边缘和内部适合精度的影响。 材料与方法：对由两个具有不同切端预备设计的金属母模制取的印模灌注而成的40个牙科石膏模型进行扫描，以生成数字模型。使用虚拟模型设计并铣削40个陶瓷贴面——10个ZLS对接、10个ZLS倒角、10个LDS对接和10个LDS倒角。然后，使用X射线纳米计算机断层扫描和计算机数字分析（n = 10）对制作的整体式陶瓷贴面进行边缘和内部间隙宽度评估。对数据进行描述性分析，并使用双向方差分析（α = 0.05）评估“材料”和“预备设计”对贴面边缘和内部适合性的影响。使用Bonferroni事后多重比较检验在通过Holm-Bonferroni方法调整α值（α = 0.01）后进一步分析材料与预备设计之间的相互作用。 结果：ZLS PLV的对接边缘平均边缘间隙和内部间隙分别为65±11μm和112±14μm，倒角分别为100±24μm和100±21μm。LDS PLV的对接边缘相应值为78±25μm和114±17μm，倒角为104±18μm和106±7μm。ZLS和LDS PLV之间的边缘间隙和内部间隙差异不显著（边缘间隙：F = 1.786，p = 0.190；内部间隙：F = 0.807，p = 0.375）。然而，预备设计（对接和倒角）在边缘间隙方面差异显著（F = 23.797，p = 0.000），但在内部间隙方面差异不显著（F = 3.703；p = 0.059）。 结论：对于ZLS CAD/CAM层压贴面，对接边缘在边缘间隙方面比倒角产生更好的边缘精度。
Int J Prosthodont. 2022
J Prosthodont. 2017-10-18
Bioengineering (Basel). 2023-1-28
Zotero 插件