English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

ObjectiveTo compare marginal fit of zirconia copings manufactured following two different systems: CAD/CAM Cerec InLab (Sirona®) and Zirkonzahn (Zirkonzahn®) as well as a Zirkograph 025 ECO (Zirkonzahn®) pantograph system.Material and methodsA master Cr-Co model stump was manufactured; it was prepared for the zirconia crown of an upper premolar. Ten zirconia copings were manufactured for each group following manufacturer's instructions. Control group consisted on ten metallic copings. A replication technique was followed using elite HD+ polyvinyl siloxane (Zhermack®). Measurements were taken using a stereomicroscope at 50x magnification so as to obtain marginal width in microns and thus determine absolute marginal discrepancy of each coping. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS® software. T-test study was conducted in order to compare obtained data.ResultsMean marginal absolute discrepancy and marginal width were as follows: 92.14 ± 38.59 and 78.62 ± 31.33μm for Cerec InLab (Sirona®) CAD/CAM system, 38.71 ± 12.62 and 36.91 ± 13.56μm for Zirkonzahn (Zirkonzahn®) CAD/CAM system, 77.92 ± 38.01 and 69.42 ± 33.23μm for Zirkograph 025 ECO (Zirkonzahn®) pantograph system. Control group made of metal copings exhibited 44.11 ± 15.36 and 43.74 ± 15.70μm. With respect to absolute marginal discrepancy and marginal width, significant differences were observed when comparing Cerec InLab (Sirona®) and Zirkograph 025 ECO (Zirkonzahn®) with control group. Nevertheless, no significant differences were observed between Zirkonzahn (Zirkonzahn®) CAD/CAM system and the control group. Overall level of statistical significance was p > 0.001.ConclusionsZirkonzahn® CAD/CAM system was the most accurate system of all. CAD/CAM Cerec InLab system (Sirona®) proved to be the less precise system

revista odontológica mexicana

Comparison of marginal fit of zirconia copings manufactured with the use of two CAD/CAM systems Cerec InLab (Sirona®) CAD/CAM Zirkonzahn (Zirkonzahn®) and Zirkograph 025 ECO pantographic system (manual milling system) (Zirkonzahn®)