Evaluating the effect of different combination of impression and pouring materials on marginal and internal adaptation of zirconia crowns.

  • Safoura Ghodsi Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Sara Mogharrabi Prosthodontics department, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Samane Jalali Prosthodontics department, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
  • Asadallah Ahmadzadeh Prosthodontics department, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
  • Sara Valizadeh Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. / Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Purpose: Two important factors in dental prosthesis are making an accurate impression and producing a suitable cast which represents the exact relationship between prepared tooth and oral structures. This study, aimed to investigate the effects of different combinations of impression and pouring materials on marginal and internal adaptation of premolar zirconia crowns. Material and Methods: Forty maxillary premolars were prepared considering round shoulder finish line. The impressions were made either by additional (Panasil) or condensation (Speedex) silicon, and poured by two different types of gypsum materials (Siladent or GC gypsum) (N=10). Zirconia crowns were fabricated using a CAD-CAM system. The crowns were cemented, and the samples were cut in bucco-lingual direction. Marginal and internal gaps were measured by stereomicroscope (×25). Results: The mean marginal gaps for Pansil-Siladent, Panasil-GC, Speedex-Siladent, and Speedex-GC were 141 μm, 143 μm, 131 μm, and 137 μm respectively. The internal gaps were 334 μm, 292 μm, 278 μm, and 257 μm respectively. The independent T-Student test showed no significant differences in average marginal or internal gap among various impression and gypsum materials or their interactions (p>0.05). Two-way ANOVA test showed no significant differences in maximum marginal or internal gap among various impression and gypsum materials and their interactions (p>0.05). Conclusion: The present study revealed no statistically significant difference in marginal/internal gap among crowns prepared using different combinations of impression-pouring materials evaluated.

References

1. 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. Dental materials journal 2009; 28(1):44-56.
2. Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Sancakli E, Eren MM, Ozel S, Yucel T, Yildiz E. Shear bond strength of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin for lithium disilicate-reinforced CAD/CAM ceramic material.J Adv Prosthodont.2014; 6(6):434-43.
3. Kumar V, Aeran H. Evaluation of effect of tray space on the accuracy of condensation silicone, addition silicone and polyether impression materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2012; 12(3):154-60
4. Soganci G, Cinar D, Caglar A, Yagiz A. 3D evaluation of the effect of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy and stability of two elastomeric impression materials. Dent Mater J.2018; 37(4):675-84.
5. Tango RN, Souza DL, da Silva LH, Sato TP, Borges AL, de Carvalho PC. Effect of the mixing method on the dimensional stability of dental stones. Braz Dent Sci. 2018; 21(4):432-6.
6. Harris PE, Hoyer S, Lindquist TJ, Stanford CM. Alterations of surface hardness with gypsum die hardeners. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 92(1):35-8.
7. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR, editors. Phillips' science of dental materials. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2012; Chapter 2.
8. Morrow RM, Brown Jr CE, Stansbury BE, deLorimier JA, Powell JM, Rudd KD. Compatibility of alginate impression materials and dental stones. J Prosthet Dent. 1971; 25(5):556-66.
9. Owen CP. An investigation into the compatibility of some irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials and dental gypsum products: Part I. Capacity to record grooves on the international standard die. J Oral Rehabil. 1986; 13(1):93-103.
10. Butta R, Tredwin CJ, Nesbit M, Moles DR. Type IV gypsum compatibility with five addition-reaction silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93(6):540-4.
11. Chang YC, Yu CH, Liang WM, Tu MG, Chen SY. Comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products. J Dent Scie. 2016; 11(1):23-8.
12. Vadapalli SB, Atluri K, Putcha MS, Kondreddi S, Kumar NS, Tadi DP. Evaluation of surface detail reproduction, dimensional stability and gypsum compatibility of monophase polyvinyl-siloxane and polyether elastomeric impression materials under dry and moist conditions. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016; 6(4):302.
13. Santini E, Octarina O. Compatibility of Types III/IV Gypsum with Addition Silicone Impression Material. Sci Dent J. 2019; 3(1):17-22.
14. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62(4): 405–408.
15. Faot F, Suzuki D, Senna PM, da Silva WJ, de Mattias Sartori IA. Discrepancies in marginal and internal fits for different metal and alumina infrastructures cemented on implant abutments. Eur J Oral Sci. 2015;123:215-219.
16. Tuntiprawon M, Wilson PR. The effect of cement thickness on the fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Aust Dent J. 1995;40:17-21.
17. Zeltner M, Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Özcan M, Hämmerle CH, Benic GI. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):354-62.
18. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(11):853-74.
19. Guess PC, Vagkopoulou T, Zhang Y, Wolkewitz M, Strub JR. Marginal and internal fit of heat pressed versus CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic onlays after exposure to thermo-mechanical fatigue. J Dent. 2014 ;42(2):199-209.
20. White BT, Long TE. Advances in Polymeric Materials for Electromechanical Devices. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2019;40(1):1800521.
21. Al-Atyaa ZT, Majeed MA. Comparative Evaluation of the Marginal and Internal Fitness of Monolithic CAD/CAM Zirconia Crowns Fabricated from Different Conventional Impression Techniques and Digital Impression Using Silicone Replica Technique (An in vitro study). Biomed pharmacol J. 2018;11(1):477-90.
22. McLean, J.W. and Von Fraunhofer, J.A. (1971) The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. British Den J. 131:107-111.
23. Jemt T, Hjalmarsson L. In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between "virtual" and "physical" assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(1):e175-82.
24. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41:853–74.
25. ArRejaie A, Alalawi H, Al-Harbi FA, Abualsaud R, Al-Thobity AM. Internal fit and marginal gap evaluation of zirconia copings using microcomputed tomography: an in vitro analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018;38:857–63.
26. Saab RC, da Cunha LF, Gonzaga CC, Mushashe AM, Correr GM. Micro-CT analysis of Y-TZP copings made by different CAD/CAM Systems: marginal and internal fit. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:5189767.
27. Ahmed WM, Abdallah MN, McCullagh AP, Wyatt CCL, Troczynski T, Carvalho RM. Marginal discrepancies of monolithic zirconia crowns: the influence of preparation designs and sintering techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:288– 98.
28. Cunali RS, Saab RC, Correr GM, Cunha LFD, Ornaghi BP, Ritter AV, Gonzaga CC. Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Zirconia Crowns: A Comparative Study of Assessment Methods. Braz Dent J. 2017;28(4):467-473.
29. Güngör MB, Doğan A, Bal BT, Nemli SK. Evaluation of marginal and internal adaptations of posterior all-ceramic crowns fabricated with chair-side CAD/CAM system: an in vitro study. Acta Odontologica Turcica. 2018; 35(1):1-8.
30. Carbajal Mejía JB, Yatani H, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T. Marginal and Internal Fit of CAD/CAM Crowns Fabricated Over Reverse Tapered Preparations. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28(2):e477-84.
31. Anunmana C, Charoenchitt M, Asvanund C. Gap com-parison between single crown and three-unit bridge zirconia substructures. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014; 6(4): 253–258.
32. Paul N, K.N RS, M.R D, S S, M.B R. Marginal and internal fit evaluation of conventional metal-ceramic versus zirconia CAD/CAM crowns. J Clin Exp Dent 2020; 12(1):e31-7.
33. Kokubo Y, Nagayama Y, Tsumita M, Ohkubo C, Fukushima S, Vult von Steyern P. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of In-Ceram crowns fabricated using the GN-I system. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:753–8.
34. 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(1):40-43.
35. Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB. Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend contin educ dent 2008; 29(8):494.
36. Veresa GK, Dimova C, Miloseva J. Analysis of the dimensional stability of elastomeric silicone impression materials. In Book of abstracts, International Symposium at Faculty of Medical Sciences 2015; 29 (1): No. 1.
37. Coli P, Karlsson S. Fit of new pressure-sintered zirconium dioxide coping. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:59–64.
Published
2021-01-06
How to Cite
GHODSI, Safoura et al. Evaluating the effect of different combination of impression and pouring materials on marginal and internal adaptation of zirconia crowns.. Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 5, p. 414-422, jan. 2021. ISSN 0719-2479. Available at: <http://joralres.com/index.php/JOR/article/view/joralres.2020.083>. Date accessed: 15 jan. 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2020.083.