Bandela Vinod, Sonune Shital, Basany Ram, Munagapati Bharathi, Faruqi Saif, Kanaparthi Saraswathi, Alkayid Reef Basher Saad, Alshammari Wroud Alturqi, Alnuman Alreem Abdulaziz, Alruwaili Eatedal Mukhlef, Alahmed Miad Abdulnasser, Aljoufi Almas Bassam, Alrayes Haya Abdulrahman, Alabid Munirah Saleh, Helal Doaa Abdelaziz A
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Al Jouf, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Prosthodontics, SVS Institute of Dental Sciences, Mahbubnagar, Telangana, India.
Eur J Dent. 2025 Aug 5. doi: 10.1055/s-0045-1810443.
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the marginal fit of three most commonly used veneers in dentistry.A maxillary central incisor was embedded in a self-cure acrylic resin block, with the crown and 2 mm of the root exposed to facilitate standardized tooth preparation. Following the preparation, 30 elastomeric impressions were made to produce master casts. These working dies were then randomly allocated to three experimental groups, each consisting of 15 samples. Group I comprised indirect composite veneers (ICV), fabricated using laboratory composite resin. Group II included pressable ceramic veneers (PCV), manufactured using heat-pressed lithium disilicate. Group III consisted of computer-aided designing (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) ceramic veneers, fabricated through digital milling of lithium disilicate blocks. All veneers were fabricated in accordance with the respective manufacturer's guidelines and were carefully repositioned on the prepared tooth to evaluate the marginal discrepancy using a stereomicroscope.Three pre-designated points-mesio-labial, mid-labial, and disto-labial and mesio-palatal, mid-palatal, and disto-palatal on the labial and palatal margins-were measured. The values were recorded and analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test using SPSS software.ICV showed more variation with mean discrepancy of 189.24 ± 25.17 µm at cervical margin and 79.01 ± 11.68 µm at palatal area. PCV showed less variation with mean discrepancy of 48.2 ± 8.35 µm and 40.58 ± 9.47 µm at cervical and palatal areas, respectively. CAD/CAM-fabricated ceramic veneers showed mean discrepancy of 94.24 ± 9.00 µm at cervical and 52.72 ± 16.33 µm at palatal areas.Pressable ceramic veneers showed the best marginal fit at both cervical and palatal margins followed by CAD/CAM veneers. Indirect composite veneers showed poorest marginal fit. The marginal discrepancy values were within the clinically acceptable range for PCV and CAD/CAM ceramic veneers.It is of paramount importance that the dentist should choose wisely the veneer material taking the marginal fit into account.
本研究的目的是评估牙科中三种最常用贴面的边缘适合性。将一颗上颌中切牙嵌入自凝丙烯酸树脂块中，使牙冠和2毫米牙根暴露，以利于进行标准化的牙齿预备。预备完成后，制作30个弹性印模以制作工作模型。然后将这些工作模型随机分为三个实验组，每组由15个样本组成。第一组包括使用实验室复合树脂制作的间接复合贴面（ICV）。第二组包括使用热压二硅酸锂制作的可压式陶瓷贴面（PCV）。第三组由通过对二硅酸锂块进行数字铣削制作的计算机辅助设计（CAD）/计算机辅助制造（CAM）陶瓷贴面组成。所有贴面均按照各自制造商的指南制作，并小心地重新放置在预备好的牙齿上，使用体视显微镜评估边缘差异。在唇侧和腭侧边缘测量三个预先指定的点——近中唇侧、唇侧中点、远中唇侧以及近中腭侧、腭侧中点、远中腭侧。使用SPSS软件记录这些值，并通过单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验进行分析。ICV显示出更大的差异，在颈部边缘的平均差异为189.24±25.17微米，在腭部区域为79.01±11.68微米。PCV显示出较小的差异，在颈部和腭部区域的平均差异分别为48.2±8.35微米和40.58±9.47微米。CAD/CAM制作的陶瓷贴面在颈部的平均差异为94.24±9.00微米，在腭部区域为52.72±16.33微米。可压式陶瓷贴面在颈部和腭部边缘均显示出最佳的边缘适合性，其次是CAD/CAM贴面。间接复合贴面显示出最差的边缘适合性。对于PCV和CAD/CAM陶瓷贴面，边缘差异值在临床可接受范围内。牙医在考虑边缘适合性的情况下明智地选择贴面材料至关重要。
