Shely Asaf, Nissan Joseph, Rosner Ofir, Zenziper Eran, Lugassy Diva, Abidulkrem Khadija, Ben-Izhack Gil
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Department of Orthodontics, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
J Funct Biomater. 2024 May 15;15(5):130. doi: 10.3390/jfb15050130.
This study aimed to compare the impact of CAD/CAM closed systems and open systems on the marginal gap of monolithic zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) ceramic crowns, as both systems are used in everyday dentistry, both chair-side and laboratory. For the closed system, 20 plastic teeth were scanned by a Primescan intra-oral scanner (IOS), and for the open system, the same number of plastic teeth were scanned by Trios 4 IOS. For the closed system, CEREC software was used, and for the open system, EXOCAD software was used. All 40 ZLS crowns were grinded by the same four-axis machine and cemented with Temp-bond, followed by self-adhesive resin cement. For each type of cement, an evaluation of the marginal gap was conducted by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Before comparisons between the groups, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed on the study variables showing a normal distribution ( > 0.05). Independent tests (α = 0.05) and paired-sample tests (α = 0.05) were used. The independent test found no significant mean marginal gap differences in the zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns bonded with Temp-bond and scanned by Primescan (28.09 μm ± 3.06) compared to Trios 4 (28.94 μm ± 3.30) ( = 0.401), and there was no significant mean marginal gap differences in zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns bonded with self-adhesive resin cement (Gcem ONE) and scanned by Primescan (46.70 μm ± 3.80) compared to Trios 4 (47.79 μm ± 2.59) ( = 0.295). Paired-sample tests showed significantly higher mean marginal gaps with Gcem ONE compared to Temp-bond for the total mean marginal gap when scanning with Primescan ( = 0.0005) or Trios 4 ( = 0.0005). In everyday dentistry, both closed systems (Primescan with Cerec) and open systems (Trios 4 with Exocad) can be used to achieve an acceptable (<120 µm) marginal gap for ZLS CELTRA DUO single crowns. There is a significant difference between cementation with Temp-bond and Gcem ONE self-adhesive resin cement ( < 0.05).
本研究旨在比较CAD/CAM封闭系统和开放系统对整体式氧化锆增强硅酸锂(ZLS)陶瓷冠边缘间隙的影响,因为这两种系统在日常牙科临床和实验室中均有使用。对于封闭系统,使用Primescan口内扫描仪(IOS)扫描20颗塑料牙;对于开放系统,使用Trios 4 IOS扫描相同数量的塑料牙。对于封闭系统,使用CEREC软件;对于开放系统,使用EXOCAD软件。所有40颗ZLS冠均由同一台四轴机器研磨,并用Temp-bond粘结,随后使用自粘结树脂水门汀。对于每种水门汀类型,通过扫描电子显微镜(SEM)对边缘间隙进行评估。在组间比较之前,对呈正态分布的研究变量进行Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验(>0.05)。使用独立t检验(α = 0.05)和配对样本t检验(α = 0.05)。独立t检验发现,与Trios 4(28.94μm±3.30)相比,使用Primescan扫描并用Temp-bond粘结的氧化锆增强硅酸锂冠的平均边缘间隙无显著差异(28.09μm±3.06)(P = 0.401);与Trios 4(47.79μm±2.59)相比,使用Primescan扫描并用自粘结树脂水门汀(Gcem ONE)粘结的氧化锆增强硅酸锂冠的平均边缘间隙也无显著差异(46.70μm±3.80)(P = 0.295)。配对样本t检验显示,当使用Primescan(P = 0.0005)或Trios 4(P = 0.0005)扫描时,与Temp-bond相比,使用Gcem ONE时总的平均边缘间隙显著更高。在日常牙科临床中,封闭系统(Primescan与Cerec联用)和开放系统(Trios 4与Exocad联用)均可用于使ZLS CELTRA DUO单冠获得可接受的(<120μm)边缘间隙。使用Temp-bond和Gcem ONE自粘结树脂水门汀粘结存在显著差异(P<0.05)。