Dudley James, Farook Taseef Hasan
Department of Prosthodontics, Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Dent J (Basel). 2025 May 2;13(5):204. doi: 10.3390/dj13050204.
Different methods have been used to fabricate and measure marginal gap in all-metal crowns, yet a systematic review on this topic has not been conducted. To review the existing literature regarding the measurement methods employed for the in vitro marginal gap measurement of pre-cemented all-metal single crowns and examine the influence of crown fabrication method on the marginal gap. A systematic search was performed from December 2024 backwards across EBSCO Host, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of included articles was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist. Ten studies, involving 180 crowns, assessed marginal gaps using computerised superimposition (102 µm), scanning electron microscopy (89 µm), profilometry (100 µm), photogrammetry (59 µm), impression replica techniques (124 µm), and direct view microscopy (35 µm). Marginal gaps varied across crowns constructed with cobalt-chromium (97 µm), titanium (56 µm), noble metals (127 µm), and base metal alloys (35 µm). No significant differences (t = 1.06, = 0.315) were observed between CAD/CAM (103.21 ± 58.56 µm) and lost wax casting method (71.59 ± 43.94 µm) of crown fabrication when analysed using an independent -test. Cobalt-chromium was the most used material for AMCs, while titanium alloys produced the lowest mean marginal gap per crown. No significant differences in reported marginal gaps were observed between crowns fabricated using lost wax casting and CAD/CAM techniques. However, the limited number of studies, variation in measurement methods, and inconsistency in methodological rigour restricted the generalisability of the findings.
已采用不同方法制作和测量全金属冠的边缘间隙，但尚未针对该主题进行系统评价。为回顾有关预粘结全金属单冠体外边缘间隙测量所采用测量方法的现有文献，并研究冠制作方法对边缘间隙的影响。按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南及预定义的纳入标准，从2024年12月开始回溯，在EBSCO Host、Scopus、PubMed和Web of Science数据库中进行了系统检索。使用乔安娜·布里格斯批判性评价清单评估纳入文章的质量。十项研究（涉及180个冠）使用计算机叠加法（102µm）、扫描电子显微镜法（89µm）、轮廓测定法（100µm）、摄影测量法（59µm）、印模复制技术（124µm）和直接观察显微镜法（35µm）评估边缘间隙。用钴铬合金（97µm）、钛（56µm）、贵金属（127µm）和贱金属合金（35µm）制作的冠的边缘间隙各不相同。使用独立t检验分析时，在冠制作的计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造（CAD/CAM）方法（103.21±58.56µm）和失蜡铸造法（71.59±43.94µm）之间未观察到显著差异（t = 1.06，P = 0.315）。钴铬合金是制作全金属冠最常用的材料，而钛合金制作的单个冠的平均边缘间隙最小。在使用失蜡铸造和CAD/CAM技术制作的冠之间，报告的边缘间隙未观察到显著差异。然而，研究数量有限、测量方法的差异以及方法学严谨性的不一致限制了研究结果的普遍性。
