J Adv Prosthodont.  2018 Oct;10(5):347-353. 10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.347.

Evaluation of marginal discrepancy of pressable ceramic veneer fabricated using CAD/CAM system: Additive and subtractive manufacturing

• Kang SY
• Lee HN
• Kim JH
• Kim WC

• KMID: 2422870
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.347

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal discrepancy of heat-pressed ceramic veneers manufactured using a CAD/CAM system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The ceramic veneers for the abutment of a maxillary left central incisor were designed using a CAD/CAM software program. Ten veneers using a micro-stereolithography apparatus (AM group), ten veneers using a five-axis milling machine (SM group), and ten veneers using a traditional free-hand wax technique (TW group) were prepared according to the respective manufacturing method. The ceramic veneers were also fabricated using a heat-press technique, and a silicone replica was used to measure their marginal discrepancy. The marginal discrepancies were measured using a digital microscope (×160 magnification). The data were analyzed using a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis H test. Finally, post-hoc comparisons were conducted using Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney U tests (α=.05).
RESULTS
The mean±SD of the total marginal discrepancy was 99.68±28.01 µm for the AM group, 76.60±28.76 µm for the SM group, and 83.08±39.74 µm for the TW group. There were significant differences in the total marginal discrepancies of the ceramic veneers (P < .05).
CONCLUSION
The SM group showed a better fit than the AM and TW groups. However, all values were within the clinical tolerance. Therefore, CAD/CAM manufacturing methods can replace the traditional free-hand wax technique.

Keyword

Additive manufacturing; Subtractive manufacturing; Computer-aided design and computer-aided machining (CAD/CAM); Ceramic veneer; Heat pressing

MeSH Terms

Ceramics*
Incisor
Methods
Silicon
Silicones
Silicon
Silicones

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Study flow.

• 

  Fig. 2 Silicone replica technique processing for measurement of marginal discrepancy: (A) silicone injection (B) silicone replica inner surface (C) fixed with medium body silicone (D) measurement with digital microscope.

• 

  Fig. 3 Measurement areas of marginal discrepancy: labial areas = (La1, La2, La12), distal area = (D3, D4, D5), mesial area = (M9, M10, M11), lingual area = (L6, L7, L8).

• 

  Fig. 4 Cross-sections of silicone replica using digital microscope (original magnification 160×): (A) labial margin (B) lingual margin (C) mesial margin (D) distal margin.

Reference

1. Marchionatti AME, Wandscher VF, May MM, Bottino MA, May LG. Color stability of ceramic laminate veneers cemented with light-polymerizing and dual-polymerizing luting agent: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118:604–610. PMID: 28385431.

2. Peumans M, De Munck J, Fieuws S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Van Meerbeek B. A prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent. 2004; 6:65–76. PMID: 15119590.

3. Aboushelib MN, Elmahy WA, Ghazy MH. Internal adaptation, marginal accuracy and microleakage of a pressable versus a machinable ceramic laminate veneers. J Dent. 2012; 40:670–677. PMID: 22542500.

4. Shamseddine L, Mortada R, Rifai K, Chidiac JJ. Fit of pressed crowns fabricated from two CAD-CAM wax pattern process plans: A comparative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118:49–54. PMID: 28024815.

5. Ural C, Burgaz Y, Saraç D. In vitro evaluation of marginal adaptation in five ceramic restoration fabricating techniques. Quintessence Int. 2010; 41:585–590. PMID: 20614046.

6. Homsy FR, Özcan M, Khoury M, Majzoub ZAK. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate inlays fabricated with milling, 3D printing, and conventional technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119:783–790. PMID: 28969918.

7. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:3–12. PMID: 22119539.

8. Stampfl J, Baudis S, Heller C, Liska R, Neumeister A, Kling R, Ostendorf A, Spitzbart M. Photopolymers with tunable mechanical properties processed by laser-based high-resolution stereolithography. J Micromech Microeng. 2008; 18:125014.

9. Hamza TA, Ezzat HA, El-Hossary MM, Katamish HA, Shokry TE, Rosenstiel SF. Accuracy of ceramic restorations made with two CAD/CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109:83–87. PMID: 23395333.

10. Neves FD, Prado CJ, Prudente MS, Carneiro TA, Zancopé K, Davi LR, Mendonça G, Cooper LF, Soares CJ. Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:1134–1140. PMID: 24969409.

11. Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC, Essig ME, Givan DA, Pan YH. Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro. J Dent. 2012; 40:202–209. PMID: 22198195.

12. Park JY, Bae SY, Lee JJ, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9:159–169. PMID: 28680546.

13. Kim DY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Reproducibility of different arrangement of resin copings by dental microstereolithography: Evaluating the marginal discrepancy of resin copings. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117:260–265. PMID: 27646792.

14. Sakornwimon N, Leevailoj C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118:386–391. PMID: 28222872.

15. Association AD. ANSI/ADA Specification No. 8 for zinc phosphate cement. Guide to dental materials and devices. 5^th ed. Chicago: ADA;p. 1970–1971.

16. Sulaiman F, Chai J, Jameson LM, Wozniak WT. A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1997; 10:478–484. PMID: 9495168.

17. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971; 131:107–111. PMID: 5283545.

18. Vojdani M, Torabi K, Farjood E, Khaledi A. Comparison the Marginal and Internal Fit of Metal Copings Cast from Wax Patterns Fabricated by CAD/CAM and Conventional Wax up Techniques. J Dent (Shiraz). 2013; 14:118–129. PMID: 24724133.

19. Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennamoun M. Trends in computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics: a review of the available streams. Int J Dent. 2014; 2014:783948. PMID: 24817888.

20. Al-Imam H, Gram M, Benetti AR, Gotfredsen K. Accuracy of stereolithography additive casts used in a digital workflow. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119:580–585. PMID: 28781073.