Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
In-Sung Yeo, DDS, MSD,a Jae-Ho Yang, DDS, MSD, PhD,b and Jai-Bong Lee, DDS, MSD, PhDc
Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
Statement of problem. Studies on marginal discrepancies of single restorations using various systems and
materials have resulted in statistical inferences that are ambiguous because of small sample sizes and limited
numbers of measurements per specimen.
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal adaptation of single anterior restorations made
using different systems.
Material and methods. The in vitro marginal discrepancies of 3 different all-ceramic crown systems (Celay
In-Ceram, conventional In-Ceram, and IPS Empress 2 layering technique), and a control group of metal ceramic
restorations were evaluated and compared by measuring the gap dimension between the crowns and the prepared
tooth at the marginal opening. The crowns were made for 1 extracted maxillary central incisor prepared with a
1-mm shoulder margin and 6-degree tapered walls by milling. Thirty crowns per system were fabricated. Crown
measurements were recorded with an optical microscope, with an accuracy of 0.1 m, at 50 points spaced
approximately 400 m along the circumferential margin. The criterion of 120 m was used as the maximum
clinically acceptable marginal gap. Mean gap dimensions and standard deviations were calculated for marginal
opening. The data were analyzed with a 1-way analysis of variance (.05).
Results. Mean gap dimensions and standard deviations at the marginal opening for the incisor crowns were 87
34 m for control, 83 33 m for Celay In-Ceram, 112 55 m for conventional In-Ceram, and 46 16
m for the IPS Empress 2 layering technique. Significant differences were found among the crown groups
(P.05). Compared with the control group, the IPS Empress 2 group had significantly smaller marginal
discrepancies (P.05), and the conventional In-Ceram group exhibited significantly greater marginal discrepancies (P.05). There was no significant difference between the Celay In-Ceram and the control group.
Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, the marginal discrepancies were all within the clinically
acceptable standard set at 120 m. However, the IPS Empress 2 system showed the smallest and most homogeneous gap dimension, whereas the conventional In-Ceram system presented the largest and more variable gap
dimension compared with the metal ceramic (control) restoration. (J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:459-64.)
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
This in vitro study demonstrated that the marginal discrepancies of 3 all-ceramic systems tested
were within the clinically acceptable standard of 120 m.
NOVEMBER 2003
been sintered, eliminating the 10-hour sinter-firing procedure that is necessary for the conventional technique.14 The Celay core requires 40 minutes for glass
infiltration, and therefore this system saves time.14
Regarding margin design, Shearer et al28 showed no
significant difference between chamfer and shoulder
margins in the fit of In-Ceram crowns. Syu et al29 reported no significant differences for marginal gaps
among metal ceramic crowns with shoulder, shoulderbevel, and chamfer finish lines. However, Goodacre et
al30 recommended a shoulder margin design for all-ceramic restorations.
Variation exists regarding what constitutes a clinically
acceptable margin.31 McLean and von Fraunhofer32
proposed that a restoration would be successful if marginal gaps and cement thicknesses of less than 120 m
could be achieved. This criterion has been cited in some
articles.4,5,19 The purpose of this study was to compare
the marginal adaptation of single anterior restorations
made using the 3 previously mentioned all-ceramic systems (Celay In-Ceram, Conventional In-Ceram, and
the IPS Empress 2 layering technique) with metal-ceramic single restorations, using an optical microscope
with image processing.
manufactured block (Orthodontic resin; Densply International Inc, Milford, Del). The long axis of the tooth
was oriented perpendicular to the surface of the block.
The tooth was prepared for crown fabrication. With a
high-speed hand piece, an incisal reduction of 2 to 3 mm
and axial reduction of approximately 1 mm were prepared. The preparation was completed by milling (F2;
Degussa Korea Inc, Seoul, Korea), resulting in an approximately 1-mm shoulder margin, 6-degree tapered
angles and an approximate height of 7 mm (Fig. 1).
The data of other studies3,5,7,10 were included in a
power analysis to determine the sample size using the
statistical software (Release 8.1; SAS Institute Inc, Cary,
NC). The sample size calculation at a power of 99%
(.05) indicated that there should be 30 specimens
per group.
A preliminary impression using a stock tray was made
using irreversible hydrocolloid impression material
(Aroma fine; GC Korea Co Ltd, Seoul, Korea). A plaster
(Samwoo plaster; Samwoo Co, Ulsan, Korea) cast was
made. After using 2 sheets of baseplate wax (Modeling
wax; Pemaco Inc, St. Louis, Mo) for relief on the cast,
the 120 custom-made trays were fabricated using acrylic
resin (Quicky; Nissin Dental Products Inc, Kyoto, Japan). Definitive impressions were made with vinyl polysiloxane (Examix; GC America Inc, Alsip, Ill) using the
custom trays, and 120 definitive stone (Rhombrock;
Mitsubishi, Tokyo, Japan) dies were fabricated (Fig. 2).
One hundred twenty veneered crowns (30 crowns
per group) were fabricated. Thirty metal-ceramic (Rexillium III; JENERIC/PENTRON Inc, Wallingford,
Conn and VMK 95; VITA Zahnfabrik) crowns with a
metal margin (control), 30 copy-milled Celay In-Ceram
NOVEMBER 2003
Metal Ceramic
Celay In-Ceram
Conventional In-Ceram
Empress 2
Statistic
df
P value
.939
.945
.953
.937
30
29
30
29
.105
.214
.305
.100
Fig. 4. Normal probability plots of each group. A, Metal-ceramic, control group. B, Celay In-Ceram group. C, Conventional
In-Ceram group. D, IPS Empress 2 group.
RESULTS
Two marginal discrepancy values, 1 in each of the
Celay In-Ceram and Empress 2 groups, were excluded
because they were not normally distributed. The Shapiro-Wilks test confirmed that the remainder of the data
were normally distributed (Table I). Figure 4 shows
normal probability plots of each group. Therefore, a
parametric test was performed on the basis of the as462
CV
30
29
30
29
87 (34)
83 (33)
112 (55)
46 (16)
0.39
0.39
0.49
0.34
Metal ceramic
Celay In-Ceram
Conventional In-Ceram
Empress 2
CV, Coefficient of variation.
df
Mean square
F value
P value
21433.329
1378.486
15.548
.000
Mean difference
(m)
P value
Metal ceramic
Metal ceramic
Metal ceramic
4.8816
24.255*
41.139*
.923
.034
.000
Experimental
Celay In-Ceram
In-Ceram
Empress 2
DISCUSSION
There have been many studies regarding the marginal
fit of crowns. However, no studies were found to be
similar to this study with respect to sample size and the
number of measurements per specimen. In Celay InCeram, Beschnidt et al3 reported that maxillary incisor
crowns had the marginal gap of 78 m, which was in
agreement with the results found in this study. However, Groten et al10 reported a different value of 18.3
m. Beschnidt et al3 tested the marginal fit of IPS Empress 2 maxillary incisor crowns and found the marginal
opening to be 62 m, which was similar to the result of
this study. Sulaiman et al19 and Grey et al33 evaluated
the marginal gaps of conventional In-Ceram crowns,
which were 160.66 m and 123 m, respectively. These
results were also in accordance with this study. However, Rinke et al14 reported the marginal gap of 33.5 m
in In-Ceram crowns. An explanation of the lack of agreement may be variation in the methods used by various
investigators studying marginal accuracy. Sulaiman et
NOVEMBER 2003
al19 suggested that the cause could be the use of different measuring instruments. Sample size and the number
of measurements per specimen may also have contributed to the variation.
Two variables were identified between the groups in
this experimental design; 1 was the difference between
the systems and, the other was the difference between
the skills of dental technicians who made the single restorations. It was assumed in this study that there was no
difference in the techniques of the dental technicians
because they each had fabricated more than 500 crowns
using each system and were considered experienced.
Therefore it is the authors opinion that the disparity is
due to the differences in the systems. The differences in
the standard deviations and the coefficients of variation
(Table II) of the 4 groups were assumed to be the technique sensitivity of the systems. This study showed clinically acceptable marginal discrepancy of all 4 groups
tested. However, the Celay In-Ceram and the IPS Empress 2 systems seemed to be less technique-sensitive
than the conventional In-Ceram system. The Celay
technique may be considered better than the traditional
slip casting method, considering manufacturing time,14
strength,14,27 and marginal accuracy.3,14
There were some limitations in this study. Marginal
opening was measurable in this experimental design.
However, internal fit of the crowns is impossible to measure. Although certain investigations focused on marginal fit, other researchers4,7,9 also evaluated the internal
fit of crowns. Measuring the internal fit of artificial
crowns requires cementing the crowns and sectioning
the specimens. In the case of sectioning, the number of
measurements per specimen is limited. The assumption
that all technicians produced equivalent work is another
limitation in this study, although they were skilled. Further investigations are required for developing new experimental designs to measure both the marginal and
internal fit.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. Mean gap dimensions and standard deviations at
the marginal opening for the anterior single crowns were
87 34 m for the control (metal-ceramic restoration),
83 33 m for Celay In-Ceram, 112 55 m for
conventional In-Ceram, and 46 16 m for IPS Empress 2 layering technique.
2. The marginal discrepancies found in this study
were within the clinically acceptable standard (120 m).
3. The IPS Empress 2 system showed significantly
smaller (P.05) and homogeneous marginal gap than
the control. The conventional In-Ceram presented significantly larger (P.05) and variable gap dimensions
compared with the metal ceramic control. There was no
463
464
VOLUME 90 NUMBER 5