Premium
Margin Gap Size of Ceramic Inlays Using Second‐Generation CAD/CAM Equipment
Author(s) -
STURDEVANT JOHN R.,
BAYNE STEPHEN C.,
HEYMANN HARALD O.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00400.x
Subject(s) - inlay , cad , ceramic , margin (machine learning) , materials science , engineering drawing , engineering , composite material , computer science , machine learning
Objective : The goal of this study was to determine if the fit of second‐generation computer‐assisted design/computer‐assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) (CEREC 2, Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany) inlays within Class II cavity preparations were within the range of 50 to 100 um and were equal or better to CEREC 1 inlays. Materials and Methods : Extracted human molars free of surface defects and caries were prepared with standard mesio‐occlusodistal cavity preparations. Ceramic inlays were fabricated with CEREC 2 CAD/CAM equipment and seated into cavity preparations. Digital images were captured at 100 times magnification. Marginal gaps were measured with an image analysis program. For each restoration, gaps were measured at 12 locations along interproximal margins and 10 locations along occlusal margins. Results : No difficulty occurred in seating any of the milled inlays. Average marginal gaps for occlusal (59 ± 35 um) and interproximal (97 ± 66 μm) margins were statistically different (t‐test, p < .01). Average marginal gap for all sites combined was 80 ± 57 μm. Marginal gap widths were smaller than those obtained from a similar study done earlier with the CEREC 1 unit for occlusal (89 ± 65 μm) and interproximal (105 ± 81 μm) margins. Ease of seating with CEREC 2 inlays was much better than with CEREC 1.