Siervo S, Pampalone A, Siervo P, Siervo R
University of Milan, College of Dentistry, Italy.
Quintessence Int. 1994 Nov;25(11):773-9.
Scanning electron microscopy was used to compare the marginal gaps of restorations milled by machinable ceramic systems to the marginal gaps of conventional laboratory-sintered ceramic restorations. For occlusal surfaces, the average marginal gap was 80 microns for both laboratory- and Celay-produced inlays. The mean gap was 200 microns and 170 microns, respectively, for Cerec T (turbine motor) and Cerec EM (electric motor) inlays. For approximal boxes, the average marginal gap was 100 microns for inlays produced with conventional laboratory-sintering techniques, 80 microns for Celay restorations, and 280 microns for the Cerec T restorations, and 260 microns for Cerec EM-machined inlays. The ceramics used, as well as the different systems themselves, can influence the results and the clinical outcome of the restorations.
使用扫描电子显微镜比较了可加工陶瓷系统研磨修复体的边缘间隙与传统实验室烧结陶瓷修复体的边缘间隙。对于咬合面，实验室制作和Celay制作的嵌体的平均边缘间隙均为80微米。Cerec T（涡轮电机）和Cerec EM（电动电机）嵌体的平均间隙分别为200微米和170微米。对于邻面箱形，传统实验室烧结技术制作的嵌体的平均边缘间隙为100微米，Celay修复体为80微米，Cerec T修复体为280微米，Cerec EM研磨嵌体为260微米。所使用的陶瓷以及不同的系统本身都会影响修复体的结果和临床效果。
