Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 28 Nov 2022

Marginal and Internal Misfit of Occlusal Veneers Made in Resin-matrix Ceramics

,
,
,
,
, and
Page Range: 701 – 708
DOI: 10.2341/21-115-L
Save
Download PDF

SUMMARY

Objective

Considering that misfit is a significant predictor of the clinical success of indirect restorations, the objective of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal misfit of two computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) RMC ceramic materials used as occlusal veneers (OVs) of different thicknesses.

Methods and Materials

A CAD model of a mandibular first molar was obtained and OV preparations 0.5-, 1.0-, and 1.5-mm thick were modeled and milled in two different materials (n=10/group): resin nanoceramic (RNC) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN). Using the same CAD model, tooth preparations were milled in fiber-reinforced epoxy resin (n=20/thickness). The marginal and internal misfit of the restorations was assessed by X-ray microtomography. The measurements of the marginal gap (MG) and absolute marginal discrepancy were performed in two locations on each slice, whereas internal gap (IG) measurements were performed at ten locations on each slice. The data obtained were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey post-hoc tests (α=0.05).

Results

No significant effect was attributable to the material type or material–thickness interaction for the MG, absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD), or IG (p>0.05). However, the thickness significantly affected the IG of the restorations (p<0.05). CAD/CAM RNC and PICN systems presented similar MG and AMD for OVs 0.5-, 1.0-, and 1.5-mm thick. However, the IG varied between thicknesses.

Copyright: 2022
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Restorations with different thicknesses (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm) and tooth preparations made of fiber-reinforced epoxy resin.


Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Measurement locations of (A): MG and AMD (coronal view), and (B): IG (sagittal view).

Abbreviations: AMD, absolute marginal discrepancy; IG, internal gap; MG, marginal gap.


Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Crowns over casting material with (A): no under or overextension, (B): underextension, and (C): overextension.


Contributor Notes

*Corresponding author: Limeira Avenue, 901 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil; e-mail: delbelcury@gmail.com; altair@unicamp.br

Clinical Relevance

The determination of the most accurate material and restoration thickness for the optimal fit of CAD/CAM restorations improves their clinical success and longevity.

Accepted: 25 Jan 2022
  • Download PDF