Marginal and Internal Fit of Ceramic Prostheses Fabricated from Different Chairside CAD/CAM Systems: An In Vitro Study

• Published in: Applied sciences Vol. 11; no. 2; p. 857
• Main Authors: Son, Keunbada, Lee, Kyu-Bok
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.01.2021
• Subjects: CAM; ceramic; Ceramics; chairside dental CAD/CAM; Computer aided manufacturing; Dentistry; Design; Evaluation; Inspection; Manufacturers; marginal and internal fit; Methods; Prostheses; Prosthetics; Scanners; Software; Statistical analysis; Teeth; United States > US; Germany; Liechtenstein
• ISSN: 2076-3417; 2076-3417
• DOI: 10.3390/app11020857

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate marginal and internal fits of ceramic crowns fabricated with chairside computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems. An experimental model based on ISO 12836:2015 was digitally scanned with different intraoral scanners (Omnicam (CEREC), EZIS PO (DDS), and CS3500 (Carestream)). Ceramic crowns were fabricated using the CAD/CAM process recommended by each system (CEREC, EZIS, and Carestream systems; N = 15). The 3-dimensional (3D) marginal and internal fit of each ceramic crown was measured using a 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X). Differences among the systems and various measurements were evaluated using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Statistically significant differences were validated using pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Occlusal gaps in the CEREC, EZIS, and Carestream groups were 113.0, 161.3, and 438.2 µm, respectively (p < 0.001). The axial gaps were 83.4, 78.0, and 107.9 µm, respectively. The marginal gaps were 77.8, 99.3, and 60.6 µm, respectively, and the whole gaps were 85.9, 107.3, and 214.0 µm, respectively. Significant differences were observed with the EZIS system compared with the other two systems in terms of the marginal gap sizes. The CEREC system showed no significant differences among the four measured regions. However, the EZIS and Carestream systems did show a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). All three systems were judged to be capable of fabricating clinically acceptable prostheses, because the marginal gap, which is the most important factor in the marginal fit of prostheses, was recorded to be below 100 µm in all three systems.