MARATTO

article · International Journal of Dentistry

Accuracy of Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Advanced Lithium Disilicate Crowns Using Different Margin Designs (In Vitro Study)

20261 citationOpen accessPharos University in Alexandria

Abstract

Background Advanced lithium disilicate glass ceramics offer excellent esthetics, but conservative crown preparations are not always the preferred choice. Various margin designs are available; however, more conservative vertical preparations (vertipreps) have less scientific evidence supporting their esthetic outcomes compared to shoulder or chamfer designs. Aim of the Study To assess the marginal adaptation and internal fit of crowns fabricated from advanced lithium disilicate (CEREC Tessera) using computer‐aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) with three distinct margin designs. Materials and Methods Three mandibular molar typodont teeth were prepared with three finish line designs: chamfer 0.5 mm (C), rounded shoulder 1 mm (RS), and vertiprep 0.2 mm (V) using a modified dental surveyor for standardization. Silicone replicas were used to create epoxy resin dies. Twenty‐four crowns were produced on the replicated resin dies, with eight crowns for each finish line design ( n = 8). Preparations were scanned using an intraoral scanner (Carestream Dental LLC, 3625 Cumberland Blvd., Ste. 700, Atlanta, GA 30339), and advanced lithium disilicate (Tessera) crowns were milled via CAD/CAM. Crowns were cemented onto their respective dies, and marginal adaptation was measured using a stereomicroscope; then, crowns were sectioned using a microtome to evaluate internal fit. Results One‐way ANOVA showed a significant difference in the marginal adaptation among groups ( p < 0.001). Group RS had the largest gap (125.45 ± 12.11 µm), followed by Group C (107.31 ± 9.25 µm) and Group V (101.79 ± 9.01 µm). Internal fit also differed significantly ( p < 0.001), with Group V having the smallest gap (70.09 ± 8.45 µm), followed by Group RS (87.85 ± 6.82 µm) and Group C (94.45 ± 9.21 µm). Conclusion The vertiprep showed the least marginal adaptation and best internal fit compared to shoulder and chamfer designs, with no significant difference in marginal gap between vertiprep and chamfer.

Research topics

  • Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
  • Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
  • Occupational health in dentistry

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1155/ijod/5550877

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.