Evaluation of the marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic molar crown-copings hypothesizing that Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fabrication shows the same accuracy of fit as conventional techniques. A set of six individual crown preparations was duplicated 12 times yielding 72 plaster dies. Slip-cast (In-Ceram Zirconia), heat-pressing (Empress II) and CAD/CAM crown-copings (Cerec inLab, DCS, Decim and Procera) were seated on 12 dies each. Marginal and internal gap width was measured in the SEM at 120x magnification. Marginal gap of slip-cast (25 +/- 18 microm) was significantly (P < 0.05) smaller than that of Empress II (44 +/- 23 microm) copings. Procera (17 +/- 16 microm) and Decim (23 +/- 17 microm) did not differ (P > 0.05) from slip-cast (25 +/- 18 microm) but were smaller (P < 0.001/P < 0.01) than Empress II (44 +/- 23 microm) and Cerec inLab (43 +/- 23 microm) (P < 0.001/P < 0.05). DCS (33 +/- 20 microm) did not differ (P > 0.05) from any of the others. The internal mid-orobuccal gap width of Procera (136 +/- 68 microm) was larger (P < 0.001) than that of Decim (81 +/- 30 microm) and slip-cast (94 +/- 84 microm) (P < 0.05) while Empress II (105 +/- 53 microm), DCS (110 +/- 79 microm) and Cerec inLab (114 +/- 58 microm) did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) from Decim, Procera and slip-cast. Internal mesiodistal gap width was similar. The fit of conventional and CAD/CAM all-ceramic molar crown-copings covered the same range of gap width confirming the assumed hypothesis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bindl et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: