• Users Online: 1695
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 192-197

The marginal and internal discrepancy of zirconia coping milled by two computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing systems


Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Date of Submission22-Jan-2021
Date of Decision03-Mar-2021
Date of Acceptance27-Mar-2021
Date of Web Publication28-Apr-2021

Correspondence Address:
Somchai Urapepon
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok
Thailand
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_30_21

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the marginal and internal discrepancy of the zirconia coping fabricated by two dental computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems.
Settings and Design: In vitro comparative study.
Materials and Methods: Twenty zirconia crowns fabricated from inCoris ZI by Cerec InLab CAD-CAM system (Dentsply Sirona Inc, USA) and Ceramill ZI by Ceramill CAD-CAM system (Amann Girrbach, Austria) were measured the discrepancy at six locations using silicone replica technique. Absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) and marginal gap (MG) represent the marginal discrepancy, and the other four locations at chamfer area, axial wall, cusp tip, and occlusal adaptation represent the internal discrepancy. The gap was measured using an optical light microscope at ×50 magnification.
Statistical Analysis Used: The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Game–Howell post hoc test.
Results: The statistical analysis showed that the accuracy of zirconia coping depends on CAD-CAM system and the location of measurement. Cerec InLab showed the marginal discrepancy of the coping 119.5 ± 44.8 μm at MG position and 125.3 ± 36.6 μm at AMD position, which was statistically larger than Ceramill system did at 53.0 ± 12.1 μm and 67.2 ± 19.1 μm. On the other hand, the discrepancy in other positions showed no statistical difference between the two CAD-CAM systems.
Conclusions: The accuracy of zirconia coping was significant affected by CAD-CAM system and the location of measurement.

Keywords: Computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing system, internal discrepancy, marginal discrepancy


How to cite this article:
Urapepon S. The marginal and internal discrepancy of zirconia coping milled by two computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2021;21:192-7

How to cite this URL:
Urapepon S. The marginal and internal discrepancy of zirconia coping milled by two computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Aug 3];21:192-7. Available from: https://www.j-ips.org/text.asp?2021/21/2/192/315061




  Introduction Top


Increasing popularity of esthetic dentistry leads to fabricate of all-ceramic restoration especially zirconia-based restoration. The zirconia restoration has esthetics, biocompatibility, durability, and improved physical properties better than other all-ceramic restoration.[1] However, zirconia needs computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology for fabrication. There are a lot of CAD-CAM systems available in the market. Almost all of the CAD-CAM systems is a closed system with their own technology, materials used, milling axis, and milling fabrication techniques.[2] Nowadays, CAD-CAM restorations are better fitting, stronger, and more esthetic than previously CAD-CAM restorations.[3]

The key indicator for the success of dental restoration is the fabricated restoration to abutment discrepancy. The good adaptation of the restoration to tooth structure, especially at the margin, is the critical point of the success. The deficiency of marginal adaptation can lead to plaque accumulation, then develop a caries, poor periodontal status, and finally have a failure of the restoration.[4] Therefore, the marginal and internal discrepancy is commonly used for comparing the accuracy of the restorations.[4],[5],[6],[7]

There is an abundance of CAD-CAM systems in the dental market, recently. Each system is a closed system with its own technology from the scanning to the final process of machining.[2] Each system has its own benefit and disbenefit. Therefore, the accuracy of crown coping fabricated from different CAD-CAM systems is in question.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the internal and marginal discrepancy of zirconia coping fabricated by two CAD-CAM systems, Cerec inLab (Dentsply Sirona Inc, PA, USA) and Ceramill (Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Austria). The null hypothesis was that the CAD-CAM system had no influence on the internal and marginal gap (MG) of the restoration.


  Materials and Methods Top


The study was approved by institutional review board. Maxillary right second premolar plastic tooth model (Columbia Dentoform Corp, NY, USA) was used to prepare an abutment for zirconia crown. The preparation tooth was then duplicated and casted with cobalt–chromium alloy (Vitallium®, Dentsply Inc, PA, USA) and used as a master die.

The die was scanned and fabricated the crown coping by two CAD-CAM systems, Cerec InLab (Dentsply Sirona Inc, PA, USA) and Ceramill (Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Austria) to evaluate the accuracy of the crown coping. Cerec InLab composes of InEos Blue desktop scanner, InLab software, and InLab MC XL milling machine (Dentsply Sirona Inc, PA, USA) and Ceramill composes of Ceramill map300 scanner, Ceramill Mind software, and Ceramill Motion milling machine (Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Austria). The scanner and the milling unit of both CAD-CAM systems were calibrated at the beginning and recalibrated each time along the study.

The master dies were fixed to a special model holder in the aligning tool provided by each CAD-CAM system and scanned to obtain abutment data. After scanning, the restoration on the abutment was designed by each CAD-CAM software. The full coverage 0.5-mm thick substructure for all-ceramic crown was designed. The cement space was set up at 10 μm. The restoration design was sent to each CAD-CAM milling machine to mill the zirconia block, inCoris ZI (Dentsply Sirona Inc, PA, USA) for Cerec InLab and Ceramill ZI (Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Austria) for Ceramill. All scanning and designing procedures were repeated 10 times to fabricate 10 coping in each group by completely random. The picture of the master die and their coping design is shown in [Figure 1]
Figure 1: Picture of master die and their coping design. (a) Shows occlusal view of the master die, (b) shows lateral view of the master die. (c) Shows coping design on Cerec InLab system, (d) shows coping design on Ceramill system

Click here to view


The discrepancies of the crown are measured at six points on the definitions defined by Holmes et al.[8] as following:

  1. Occlusal adaptation (OA) is the internal adaptation of the surface of the crown to the abutment at that midpoint from the facial and proximal
  2. Cusp tip (CT) is the internal adaptation of the surface of the crown to the abutment at the CT
  3. Axial wall (AW) is the internal adaptation of the retainer walls at the midpoint of the AW (2 mm occlusal to the margin of the abutment)
  4. Chamfer area (CA) is the internal adaptation of the substructure at the point of the biggest diameter of CA
  5. MG is the perpendicular measurement from the internal surface of the substructure to the AW of the preparation at the margin
  6. Absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) is the distance from the margin of the substructure to the cavosurface angle of finish line preparation.


The schematic picture of the measuring point is shown in [Figure 2]. The AMD and MG were examined to represent the marginal discrepancy, while the CA, AW, CT, and OA were examined to represent the internal discrepancy.
Figure 2: 2 Cross-sectional of the six-points discrepancy measurement. OA = Occlusal Adaptation, CT = Cusp tip, AW = Axial wall. CA = Chamfer area, MG = Marginal Gap, AMD = Absolute Marginal Discrepancy

Click here to view


The discrepancy of the crown was examined using cross-sectional combined with silicone replica technique under an optical measuring microscope (Nikon Eclipse E400, Tokyo, Japan) at ×50 magnification at four-point measurement: mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual, then average to one datum for a crown.

The silicone replica technique was performed by filling light body silicone into the crown and placed onto the master abutment. Ten N load was applied on the occlusal surface for 10 s, then removed the load and waiting until silicone got complete set. The silicone films represented the discrepancy between the crown and abutment. The crown was stabilized by heavy body silicone in a customized plastic tray. After removal of the crown, the different color of heavy body silicone was filled into the crown to represent the abutment. A cutting machine was used to cut the silicone in buccolingual and mesiodistal direction along the slot of the tray to ensure the position of the measurement. The schematic picture of the silicone replica technique procedure is shown in [Figure 3]. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Games–Howell post hoc test.
Figure 3: Schematic picture of the silicone replica procedure

Click here to view



  Results Top


The results of mean and standard deviation of the discrepancies of the crown fabricated from two CAD-CAM systems are shown in [Table 1]. The results of ANOVA in [Table 2] showed that the discrepancy of the crown was influenced by both CAD-CAM system and location of measurement without their interaction.
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of the discrepancies of the crown fabricated by two computer-aided design–computer aided manufacturing systems

Click here to view
Table 2: Results of ANOVA

Click here to view


Cerec InLab showed the marginal discrepancy of the coping at 119.5 ± 44.8 μm for MG position and 125.3 ± 36.6 μm for AMD position, which was statistically larger than Ceramill system did at 53.0 ± 12.1 μm and 67.2 ± 19.1 μm (P < 0.05), whereas the internal discrepancy of both systems was not a statistically significant difference in any location of measurement (P > 0.05). The internal discrepancy at AW showed the smallest gap among the other internal discrepancy measuring point.


  Discussion Top


The occurrence with an ill-fitting restoration is clearly shown the importance of well-fitting restoration. MG is a critical criterion for the success and quality of dental restorations. Higher marginal discrepancy could affect the dissolution of luting agent,[9] microleakage, dental caries and pulpitis,[10] periodontal inflammation,[11] and marginal discoloration.[11],[12] From this implication, the smallest marginal discrepancy is needed. A clinical acceptable MG of fixed restorations is difficult to identify.[13] In several studies, the MGs of 1–161 μm have been reported for various fabrication techniques for all-ceramic crowns.[14],[15] In contrast, MGs of CAD-CAM fabricated all-ceramic crowns have been reported a little bit smaller as 17–118 μm.[14],[16],[17],[18] A clinically acceptable MG width <120 μm defined by McLean and Von Fraunhofer is the famous criterion among researchers, using for evaluation the MG of restoration.[19] Two locations which are AMD and MG were measured and represented the marginal discrepancy. The largest discrepancy at the margin would always be AMD and would reflect the total misfit because it is the angular combination of the MG both vertical and horizontal, either of overextension or underextension that would reflect the true total misfit at the margin.

In this study, the Cerec InLab specimens showed significantly larger marginal discrepancy than those of the Ceramill specimens in both locations at AMD and MG. The mean of marginal discrepancy of crown copings milled by Ceramill reported at 67.2 ± 19.1 μm for AMD and 53.0 ± 12.1 μm for MG that was a clinically acceptable value. On the other hand, AMD (125.3 ± 36.6 μm) and MG (119.5 ± 44.8 μm) of crown copings milled by Cerec InLab were in the borderline of clinically acceptable values. This may be due to Ceramill motion that has a four-axis milling unit, while Cerec inLab MC XL machine has a three-axis milling unit. More axis devices can mill more complex geometry. This might be the reason of the difference in the marginal discrepancy between both CAD-CAM systems.

In addition to the marginal discrepancy, internal discrepancy also plays an important role in the longevity of the restoration as well. It influenced the retention and seating ability including increase fracture resistance of prosthesis. Too small internal gap would cause difficulty in seating the prosthesis due to back pressure of the cement, causing stress concentrations on the surface which leaded to initiate chipping damage of the veneering layer.[20] Furthermore, too wide of the internal gap can increase cement thickness leading to higher amounts of water absorption[21] resulting in degradation of resin cements, reducing the elastic modulus, reducing the retentive force,[22] and changing of the mechanical properties.[9],[21],[22]

Apart from the marginal discrepancy, the internal discrepancy was also investigated in this study. Several studies reported that the internal gap was within the range of 49–136 μm.[20],[23],[24] However, most of the studies reported the overall internal gap, different from the detailed measurement of the internal gap at different locations, as in this study.[17],[23],[24],[25],[26] In this study, four locations at CA, AW, CT, and OA were measured and represented the internal discrepancy.

The detailed measurement of internal discrepancy in this study can be done by the advantage of the cross-section of the silicone replica technique. In general, methods for marginal discrepancy measurement can be divided into two methods, one is direct-view method and the other is a cross-sectional method.[27] The direct-view method including exploration by explorer, visual examination, and microscopy examination is used to measure discrepancy of the external surface of the restoration. This technique is a convenient, easy, rapid, and nondestructive method. The procedure is cheaper, less time consuming than other techniques, and can be used for continuous process or repeated measure research work,[28] while the cross-sectional method can be measured both marginal and internal discrepancies. The advantages of this technique are the accuracy, precision, and repeatability of the measurements, and it allows the determination of horizontal marginal discrepancy.[28] However, the obvious disadvantage of this method is the destruction of the specimens; therefore, the discrepancy measurement at various stages of prostheses fabrication is not possible.

In this study, the mean of internal discrepancy of crown copings in four different locations of both CAD-CAM systems were not statistically significant differences from each other. The internal discrepancy was in the same range with several studies.[20],[22],[25],[29] However, the mean discrepancy value of AW was found smallest among the other location significantly (P > 0.05). The AW discrepancy seems to play an important role in the overall internal discrepancy.[30] Milling process and the preparation design may also affect the internal adaptation.[29] For the majority of CAD-CAM systems, an axial taper of 6°–8° is recommended.[31] However, the larger convergence angles such as 12° revealed the best marginal fit of CAD/CAM-generated restoration.[30]


  Conclusions Top


  1. The discrepancy of zirconia coping depends on CAD-CAM system and the location of measurement
  2. Marginal discrepancy (both AMD and MG) of zirconia coping showed a statistically significant difference between two CAD-CAM systems, while there is no difference for the internal discrepancy
  3. Zirconia copings from Cerec InLab system showed higher marginal discrepancy than those from the Ceramill system.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Grenade C, Mainjot A, Vanheusden A. Fit of single tooth zirconia copings: Comparison between various manufacturing processes. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:249-55.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: Current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Edward A, Mclaren DA. CAD-CAM systems, materials, and clinical guildelines for all-ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures. Compendium 2002;23:637-52.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Kokubo Y, Tsumita M, Kano T, Sakurai S, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of zirconia all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthodont Res 2011;55:40-3.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Baig MR, Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104:216-27.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Duqum IS, Brenes C, Mendonca G, Carneiro TA, Cooper LF. Marginal fit evaluation of CAD/CAM All ceramic crowns obtained by two digital workflows: An In vitro study using micro-CT technology. J Prosthodont 2019;28:1037-43.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hong MH, Min BK, Lee DH, Kwon TY. Marginal fit of metal-ceramic crowns fabricated by using a casting and two selective laser melting processes before and after ceramic firing. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:475-81.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:405-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ortengren U, Elgh U, Spasenoska V, Milleding P, Haasum J, Karlsson S. Water sorption and flexural properties of a composite resin cement. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:141-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Goldman M, Laosonthorn P, White RR. Microleakage—full crowns and the dental pulp. J Endod 1992;18:473-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:383-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL, Mohamed SE, Billiot S, et al. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: A prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:237-44.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Nawafleh NA, Mack F, Evans J, Mackay J, Hatamleh MM. Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: A literature review. J Prosthodont 2013;22:419-28.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Beschnidt SM, Strub JR. Evaluation of the marginal accuracy of different all-ceramic crown systems after simulation in the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:582-93.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
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;10:478-84.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kästner K, Walter MH. Clinical fit of procera allceram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:419-24.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Yeo IS, Yang JH, Lee JB. In vitro marginal fit of three all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:459-64.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Bindl A, Mörmann WH. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:441-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rekow D, Thompson VP. Near-surface damage – A persistent problem in crowns obtained by computer-aided design and manufacturing. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2005;219:233-43.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Silva NR, de Souza GM, Coelho PG, Stappert CF, Clark EA, Rekow ED, et al. Effect of water storage time and composite cement thickness on fatigue of a glass-ceramic trilayer system. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008;84:117-23.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Son YH, Han CH, Kim S. Influence of internal-gap width and cement type on the retentive force of zirconia copings in pullout testing. J Dent 2012;40:866-72.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Spiekermann H, Anusavice KJ. Marginal fit of alumina-and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent 2001;26:367-74.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
May KB, Russell MM, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. Precision of fit: The Procera AllCeram crown. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:394-404.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Coli P, Karlsson S. Precision of a CAD/CAM technique for the production of zirconium dioxide copings. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:577-80.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Lee KB, Park CW, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic crowns fabricated with two different CAD/CAM systems. Dent Mater J 2008;27:422-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Sorensen JA. A standardized method for determination of crown margin fidelity. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:18-24.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Gonzalo E, Suárez MJ, Serrano B, Lozano JF. Comparative analysis of two measurement methods for marginal fit in metal-ceramic and zirconia posterior FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:374-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Zimmermann M, Valcanaia A, Neiva G, Mehl A, Fasbinder D. Digital evaluation of the fit of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns with a new three-dimensional approach. Quintessence Int 2018;49:9-15.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Gernet W, Naumann M. Effect of preparation angles on the precision of zirconia crown copings fabricated by CAD/CAM system. Dent Mater J 2008;27:814-20.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Rinke S, Fornefett D, Gersdorff N, Lange K, Roediger M. Multifactorial analysis of the impact of different manufacturing processes on the marginal fit of zirconia copings. Dent Mater J 2012;31:601-9.  Back to cited text no. 31
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed528    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded63    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]