nach oben

Current Oral Health Reports

Erschienen in:

18.11.2019 | Modern Production Laboratory Advances in Dental Technology (M Bergler and E Steger, Section Editors)

Factors Affecting the Marginal Fit of CAD-CAM Restorations and Concepts to Improve Outcomes

verfasst von: Alan Atlas, Wael Isleem, Michael Bergler, Howard P. Fraiman, Ricardo Walter, Nathaniel D. Lawson

Erschienen in: Current Oral Health Reports | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

With the advent of CAD-CAM technology, it is essential to examine factors that affect outcomes of restorations fabricated by the new methodologies.

Recent Findings

This report assesses and compares ceramic crown fabrication systems to determine what factors affect marginal fit and provide solutions for better outcomes.

Summary

The review revealed key scientific evidence about what factors influence the marginal fit of CAD-CAM ceramic restorations. Solutions were recommended to help the clinician achieve greater long-term success when providing this treatment to their patients. The dental microscope enables the dental practitioner to achieve improved clinical outcomes in all phases of restorative dentistry, especially CAD-CAM restorations.

• Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41:853–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12205This review emphasized deficiency in the number of clinical studies on accuracy of CAD-CAM restorations and inconsistency in protocols preclude solid evidenced based conclusions.CrossRef

• Papadiochou S, Pissiotis AL. Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: A systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):545–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.001This review concluded there is lack of evidence to conclude CAD-CAM restorations have superior marginal adaptation.CrossRef

Hamza TA, Sherif RM. In vitro evaluation of marginal discrepancy of monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated with different CAD-CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(6):762–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.011.CrossRefPubMed

•• Schestatsky R, Zucuni CP, Venturini AB, de Lima Burgo TA, Bacchi A, Valandro LF, et al. CAD-CAM milled versus pressed lithium-disilicate monolithic crowns adhesively cemented after distinct surface treatments: fatigue performance and ceramic surface characteristics. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019;94:144–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.03.005This study compared CAD/CAM’s different classes of materials possessing various levels of machinability compared to pressed manufacturing.CrossRefPubMed

Contrepois M, Soenen A, Bartala M, Laviole O. Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(6):447–454.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.003.CrossRefPubMed

• Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:405–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90170-4This paper is considered the gold standard for evaluative criteria for marginal fit.CrossRef

Demir N, Ozturk AN, Malkoc MA. Evaluation of the marginal fit of full ceramic crowns by the microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) technique. Eur J Dent. 2014;8:437–44. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.143612.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sorensen JA. A rationale for comparison of plaque-retaining properties of crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:264–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90329-6.CrossRefPubMed

McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an vivo technique. Br Dent J. 131(1971):107–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708.CrossRef

10.

Akbar JH, Petrie CS, Walker MP, Williams K, Eick JD. Marginal adaptation of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM composite crowns using two different finish line preparation designs. J Prosthodont. 2006;15:155–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849x.2006.00095.x.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Nov;37(11):866–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02113.x.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Att W, Komine F, Gerds T, Strub JR. Marginal adaptation of three different zirconium dioxide three-unit fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;101:239–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60047-0.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ural C, Burgaz Y, Saraç D. In vitro evaluation of marginal adaptation in five ceramic restoration fabricating techniques. Quintessence Int. 2010;41:585–90. PMID: 20614046

14.

Bourbia M, Ma D, Cvitkovitch DG, Santerre JP, Finer Y. Cariogenic bacteria degrade dental resin composites and adhesives. J Dent Res. 2013;92(11):989–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513504436.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Nedeljkovic I, De Munck J, Ungureanu A-A, Slomka V, Bartic C, Vananroye A, et al. Biofilm-induced changes to the composite surface. J Dent. 2017 Aug;63:36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.05.015.CrossRefPubMed

16.

•• Kusuma Yulianto HD, Rinastiti M, Cune MS, de Haan-Visser W, Atema-Smit J, Busscher HJ, et al. Biofilm composition and composite degradation during intra-oral wear. Dent Mater. 2019;35(5):740–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.02.024This study examined the effect of cariogenic bacteria on the tooth-restoration interface.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Montagner AF, Opdam NJ, Ruben JL, Bronkhorst EM, Cenci MS, Huysmans MC. Behavior of failed bonded interfaces under in vitro cariogenic challenge. Dent Mater. 2016;32(5):668–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.02.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Kuper NK, Opdam NJM, Ruben JL, de Soet JJ, Cenci MS, Bronkhorst EM, et al. Gap size and wall lesion development next to composite. J Dent Res. 2014;93(7 Suppl):108S–13S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514534262.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

• Maske TT, Hollanders ACC, Kuper NK, Bronkhorst EM, Cenci MS, Huysmans MCDNJM. A threshold gap size for in situ secondary caries lesion development. J Dent. 2019;80:36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.10.014This in-vitro study demonstrated the marginal gap is minimal for secondary caries development.CrossRef

20.

Denry I. How and when does fabrication damage adversely affect the clinical performance of ceramic restorations? Dent Mater. 2013;29(1):85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.07.001.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Fraga S, Amaral M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF, Kleverlaan CJ, May LG. Impact of machining on the flexural fatigue strength of glass and polycrystalline CAD/CAM ceramics. Dent Mater. 2017;33(11):1286–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.07.019.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Romanyk DL, Martinez YT, Veldhuis S, Rae N, Guo Y, Sirovica S, et al. Strength-limiting damage in lithium silicate glass-ceramics associated with CAD-CAM. Dent Mater. 2019;35(1):98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.004.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Gold SA, Ferracane JL, da Costa J. Effect of crystallization firing on marginal gap of CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate crowns. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(1):63–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12638.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Azarbal A, Azarbal M, Engelmeier RL, Kunkel TC. Marginal fit comparison of CAD/CAM crowns milled from two different materials. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(5):421–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12683.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Furtado de Mendonca A, Shahmoradi M, Gouvêa CVD, De Souza GM, Ellakwa A. Microstructural and mechanical characterization of CAD/CAM materials for monolithic dental restorations. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e587–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12964.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Mounajjed R, M Layton D, Azar B. The marginal fit of E.max Press and E.max CAD lithium disilicate restorations: A critical review. Dent Mater J. 2016;35(6):835–44. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-008.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Azar B, Eckert S, Kunkela J, Ingr T, Mounajjed R. The marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns: Press vs. CAD/CAM. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32:e001. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107/2018.vol32.0001.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Shim JS, Lee JS, Lee JY, Choi YJ, Shin SW, Ryu JJ. Effect of software version and parameter settings on the marginal and internal adaptation of crowns fabricated with the CAD/CAM system. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23:515–22. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150081.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Hamza TA, Ezzat HA, MMK EL-H, HAEM K, Shokry TE, Rosenstiel SF. Accuracy of ceramic restorations made with two CAD/CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109:83–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60020-7.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kirsch C, Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. Trueness of four different milling procedures used in dental CAD/CAM systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(2):551–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1916-y.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Okutan M, Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR. Fracture load and marginal fit of shrinkage- free ZrSiO4 all-ceramic crowns after chewing simulation. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33:827–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01637.x.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kale E, Yilmaz B, Seker E, Özcelik TB. Effect of fabrication stages and cementation on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(6):736–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.01.004.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Albert FE, El-Mowafy OM. Marginal adaptation and microleakage of Procera AllCeram crowns with four cements. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:529–35.PubMed

34.

•• Yu H, Chen YH, Cheng H, Sawase T. Finish-line designs for ceramic crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(1):22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.002This review examined the effect of diamond shape during tooth preparation on marginal gap development.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Skjold A, Schriwer C, Øilo M. Effect of margin design on fracture load of zirconia crowns. Eur J Oral Sci. 2019;127(1):89–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12593.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Lehmensiek M, Askar H, Brouwer F, Blunck U, Paris S, Schwendicke F. Restoration integrity, but not material or cementation strategy determined secondary caries lesions next to indirect restorations in vitro. Dent Mater. 2018;34(12):e317–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.004.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Winkelmeyer C, Wolfart S, Marotti J. Analysis of tooth preparations for zirconia-based crowns and fixed dental prostheses using stereolithography data sets. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(5):783–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.03.019.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Renne W, McGill ST, Forshee KV, DeFee MR, Mennito AS. Predicting marginal fit of CAD/CAM crowns based on the presence or absence of common preparation errors. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;108(5):310–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60183-8.CrossRefPubMed

39.

• Renne W, Wolf B, Kessler R, McPherson K, Mennito AS. Evaluation of the marginal fit of CAD/CAM crowns fabricated using two different chairside CAD/CAM systems on preparations of varying quality. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27(4):194–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12148This study demonstrated the importance of preparation over scanning and milling systems utilized.CrossRef

40.

Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Con- temporary fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 325–7.

41.

Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Ja-Cobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1997. p. 437.

42.

Hmaidouch R, Neumann P, Mueller WD. Influence of preparation form, luting space setting and cement type on the marginal and internal fit of CAD/ CAM crown copings. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14:219–26.PubMed

43.

Euán R, Figueras-Álvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Brufau-de Barberà M, Gomes-Azevedo S. Comparison of the marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide crowns in preparations with two different finish lines. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(4):291–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00831.x.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Ferreira A, Oliveira F, Bottino MA. Vertical marginal discrepancy of ceramic copings with different ceramic materials, finish lines, and luting agents: an in vitro evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92:250–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.06.023.CrossRef

45.

Cho L, Choi J, Yi YJ, Park CJ. Effect of finish line variants on marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceramic optimized polymer/fiber-reinforced composite crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:554–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.03.004.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Keeling A, Wu J, Ferrari M. Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan. J Dent. 2017;59:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.003.CrossRef

47.

•• Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26(3):101–21. https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01752Abduo21This review examined important elements when considering intra-oral scanning over conventional impression techniques.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

• Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3This study demonstrated the potential issues scanners have compared to conventional impressions.

50.

Li YQ, Wang H, Wang YJ, Chen JH. Effect of different grit sizes of diamond rotary instruments for tooth preparation on the retention and adaptation of complete coverage restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;107(2):86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60029-8.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Geminiani A, Abdel-Azim T, Ercoli C, Feng C, Meirelles L, Massironi D. Influence of oscillating and rotary cutting instruments with electric and turbine handpieces on tooth preparation surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(1):51–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.02.007.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Solá-Ruiz MF, Faus-Matoses I, Del Rio HJ, Fons-Font A. Study of surface topography, roughness, and microleakage after dental preparation with different instrumentation. Int J Prosthodont. 2014;27(6):530–3. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3932.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Faus-Matoses I, Solá-Ruiz F. Dental preparation with sonic vs high-speed finishing: analysis of microleakage in bonded veneer restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2014;16(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a30754.CrossRefPubMed

54.

• Ellis R, Bennani V, Purton D, Chandler N, Lowe B. The effect of ultrasonic instruments on the quality of preparation margins and bonding to dentin. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012;24(4):278–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00495.xThis study demonstrated sonic handpieces have a positive effect on finish line margins and bonding.CrossRef

55.

Bowers DJ, Glickman GN, Solomon ES, He J. Magnification’s effect on endodontic fine motor skills. J Endod. 2010;36:1135–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.003.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Ferreira R, Prado M, de Jesus Soares A, Zaia AA, de Souza-Filho FJ. Influence of using clinical microscope as auxiliary to perform mechanical cleaning of post space: a bond strength analysis. J Endod\. 2015;41(8):1311–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.003.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Setzer FC, Shah S, Kohli M, Karabucak B, Kim S. Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature - part 1: comparison of traditional root- end surgery and endodontic microsurgery. J Endod\. 2010;36:1757–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.007.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Setzer FC, Kohli M, Shah S, Karabucak B, Kim S. Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature - part 2: comparison of endodontic microsurgical techniques with and without the use of higher magnification. J Endod\. 2012;38:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.021.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Tsesis I, Rosen E, Taschieri S, Telishevsky Strauss Y, Ceresoli V, Del Fabbro M. Outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed by a modern technique: an updated meta-analysis of the literature. J Endod\. 2013;39:332–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.044.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Friedman MJ, Landesman HM. Microscope-assisted precision (MAP) dentistry. A challenge for new knowledge. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1998;26(12):900–5.PubMed

61.

Musikant BL, Cohen BI, Deutsch AS. The surgical microscope, not just for the specialist. N Y State Dent J. 1996;62(8):33–5.PubMed

Titel: Factors Affecting the Marginal Fit of CAD-CAM Restorations and Concepts to Improve Outcomes
verfasst von: Alan Atlas
Wael Isleem
Michael Bergler
Howard P. Fraiman
Ricardo Walter
Nathaniel D. Lawson
Publikationsdatum: 18.11.2019
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Current Oral Health Reports / Ausgabe 4/2019
Elektronische ISSN: 2196-3002
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-019-00245-2

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

19.04.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Werden Personen mit Vorhofflimmern in der Blanking-Periode nach einer Katheterablation gegen eine bestehende Parodontitis behandelt, verbessert dies die Erfolgsaussichten. Dafür sprechen die Resultate einer prospektiven Untersuchung.

Invasive Zahnbehandlung: Wann eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe vor infektiöser Endokarditis schützt

11.04.2024 Endokarditis Nachrichten

Bei welchen Personen eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe zur Prävention einer infektiösen Endokarditis nach invasiven zahnärztlichen Eingriffen sinnvoll ist, wird diskutiert. Neue Daten stehen im Einklang mit den europäischen Leitlinienempfehlungen.

Zell-Organisatoren unter Druck: Mechanismen des embryonalen Zahnwachstums aufgedeckt

08.04.2024 Zahnmedizin Nachrichten

Der Aufbau von Geweben und Organen während der Embryonalentwicklung wird von den Zellen bemerkenswert choreografiert. Für diesen Prozess braucht es spezielle sogenannte „Organisatoren“. In einer aktuellen Veröffentlichung im Fachjournal Nature Cell Biology berichten Forschende durch welchen Vorgang diese Organisatoren im Gewebe entstehen und wie sie dann die Bildung von Zähnen orchestrieren.

Die Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde umbenannt

11.03.2024 Kinderzahnmedizin Nachrichten

Infolge der Umbenennung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kinderzahnheilkunde in Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinderzahnmedizin (DGKiZ) wird deren Mitgliederzeitschrift Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde in Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnmedizin umbenannt. Aus diesem Grunde trägt die erste Ausgabe in 2024 erstmalig den neuen Titel.

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Beyond Endodontic MicroSurgery 2: Transplantation

Facially Driven Digital Diagnostic Waxing: New Software Features to Simulate and Define Restorative Outcomes

3D Printing of Zirconia–What is the Future?

Functional Aesthetics in Implantology and Reconstructive Dentistry: Analysis and Transfer of Referenced Individual Patient Information With the PlaneSystem®

Beyond Endodontic MicroSurgery 1: Intentional Replantation

Current Developments on Enamel and Dentin Remineralization

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

Invasive Zahnbehandlung: Wann eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe vor infektiöser Endokarditis schützt

Zell-Organisatoren unter Druck: Mechanismen des embryonalen Zahnwachstums aufgedeckt

Die Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde umbenannt

Newsletter