Evaluation of a Technique for Reducing Chairside Occlusal Adjustment of Crowns

Yacoub Altarakemah 1, Jaber Akbar 1, Saeed Akthar 2, Muawia A Qudeimat 3, Ridwaan Omar 1

Affiliations

02 January 2021

-

doi: 10.1111/jopr.13252

Abstract

Purpose: To assess whether the occlusion of metal-ceramic crowns, as received from the laboratory, and the time taken to adjust the occlusion of crowns not deemed acceptable, can be reduced by fabricating the crowns with controlled amounts of infra-occlusion during the laboratory phase.

Material and methods: An opposing set of typodonts, articulated in maximum intercuspal position served as the patient in an in vitro simulation. Seventy-five metal-ceramic crowns were fabricated for the mandibular right second molar with three different occlusal contact specifications: A, control group had occlusal contacts shared evenly by the crown and the neighboring teeth (n = 25); B, first experimental group had the occlusion relieved until 2 shimstock foils were able to be pulled from between the crown and the opposing tooth without tugging (n = 25); C, second experimental group had the occlusion relieved until 4 shimstock foils were able to be pulled from between the crown and the opposing tooth without tugging (n = 25). The occlusion of each crown, as received from the laboratory, was assessed using one of three categories (Excellent, Acceptable, and Poor). Chi-square analysis was used to test the differences in occlusal outcomes between the three study groups. For all of those rated "Acceptable," the time taken to adjust each crown to proper occlusion was recorded. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni tests were carried out to compare the adjustment times across the three study groups.

Results: The 2-shim group had the best outcome, with 56% of the crowns rated as "Excellent" (p = 0.001). In addition, there were statistically significant differences in adjustment times between the control group (A) and the 2-shim (B) and the 4-shim (C) groups (p = 0.0001), but not between the 2-shim (B) and 4-shim (C) groups (p = 0.08).

Conclusions: Metal-ceramic crowns fabricated with controlled interocclusal relief of 2- and 4-shims each required less time for chairside occlusal adjustment than crowns fabricated in the laboratory to conventional occlusal contact. However, the overall superior outcome, in terms of the possibility for immediate insertion as received from the laboratory as well as favorable chairside adjustment time, for the 2-shim prespacing suggests that this dimension is the preferred option over 4-shim prespacing to reduce occlusal inaccuracies of indirect restorations.

Keywords: Crowns; Occlusion; Time.

Similar articles

Comparison of occlusal contact errors of 6 chairside CAD/CAM crowns: a self-controlled clinical study.

Pan Y, Lin H, Wang Y, Jiang L, Cheng Y, Yu H, Cheng H.Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Mar;27(3):1301-1310. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04764-8. Epub 2022 Nov 5.PMID: 36333533

Clinical outcomes of three different crown systems with CAD/CAM technology.

Batson ER, Cooper LF, Duqum I, Mendonça G.J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Oct;112(4):770-7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.002. Epub 2014 Jun 28.PMID: 24980739 Clinical Trial.

Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics.

Kollmuss M, Kist S, Goeke JE, Hickel R, Huth KC.Clin Oral Investig. 2016 May;20(4):791-7. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1554-9. Epub 2015 Aug 7.PMID: 26245275

Alternative crown systems. Is the metal-ceramic crown always the restoration of choice?

Wall JG, Cipra DL.Dent Clin North Am. 1992 Jul;36(3):765-82.PMID: 1397433 Review.

Number of occlusal contacts during maximum intercuspation in dentate adults: A systematised review.

Qadeer S, Türp JC.J Oral Rehabil. 2023 Jul;50(7):617-626. doi: 10.1111/joor.13451. Epub 2023 Mar 27.PMID: 36943389 Review.

KMEL References

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

References

  1.  
    1. Meng JC, Nagy WW, Wirth CG, et al: The effect of equilibrating mounted dental stone casts on the occlusal harmony of cast metal complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104:122-132
  2.  
    1. Christensen GJ: Improving interocclusal records for crowns and fixed prostheses. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142:441-444
  3.  
    1. Cowie RR: The successful crown delivery. J Dent Technol 2015;38-44
  4.  
    1. McCracken MS, Litaker MS, Gordan VV, et al: Remake rates for single-unit crowns in clinical practice: findings From The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Prosthodont 2019;28:122-130
  5.  
    1. Loos LG, Boyarsky HP, Quiring DJ: Procedure for occlusal refinement of mounted definitive casts to reduce clinical time required for adjustment of occlusion. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85: 246-251
  6.  
    1. Filtchev AD, Kalachev YS: Phenomenon of domination of the strongest contacts in centric occlusion. Quintessence Int 2008;39:99-106
  7.  
    1. Boyarsky HP, Loos LG, Leknius C: Occlusal refinement of mounted casts before crown fabrication to decrease clinical time required to adjust occlusion. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82: 591-594
  8.  
    1. Storey D, Coward TJ: The quality of impressions for crowns and bridges: an assessment of the work received at three commercial dental laboratories. Assessing qualities of impressions that may lead to occlusal discrepancies with indirect restorations. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014;22:11-18
  9.  
    1. Christensen GJ: Making fixed prostheses that are not too high. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:96-98
  10.  
    1. Cox JR, Brandt RL, Hughes HJ: The double arch impression technique: a solution to prevent supraocclusion in the indirect restoration. Gen Dent 2000;48:86-91
  11.  
    1. Wassell RW, Barker D, Steele JG: Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: try-in and cementation of crowns. Br Dent J 2002;193:17-28
  12.  
    1. Piehslinger E, Bauer W, Schmiedmayer HB: Computer simulation of occlusal discrepancies resulting from different mounting techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:279-283
  13.  
    1. Davis RD: Predictable seating of the single-unit cast restoration. Quintessence Int 1991;22:631-663
  14.  
    1. Maibaum WW: Saving time (and face) in dealing with under-reduced crown preparations. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128:475-476
  15.  
    1. Nash KD, Benting DG: Private practice of prosthodontists in the United States: results from the 2008 & 2011 surveys of prosthodontists. J Prosthodont 2014;23:10-20
  16.  
    1. Zarb G, Hobkirk J, Eckert S, et al: Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients (ed 13). St Louis, Mosby, 2013
  17.  
    1. Riise C, Ericsson SG: A clinical study of the number of occlusal tooth contacts in the intercuspal position at light and hard pressure in adults. J Oral Rehabil 1982;9:469-477
  18.  
    1. Reich S, Brungsberg B, Teschner H, et al: The occlusal precision of laboratory versus CAD/CAM processed all-ceramic crowns. Am J Dent 2010;23:53-56
  19.  
    1. Nemli SK, Wolfart S, Reich S: InLab and Cerec Connect: virtual contacts in maximum intercuspation compared with original contacts-an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2012;15:23-31
  20.  
    1. Wilson EG, Werrin SR: Double arch impressions for simplified restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:198-202
  21.  
    1. Christensen GJ: Ensuring accuracy and predictability with double-arch impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:1123-1125
  22.  
    1. Boksman L: Optimizing occlusal results for crown and bridge prostheses. Dent Today 2011;30:154-157
  23.  
    1. Ghazal M, Kern M: Influence of loading forces on the vertical accuracy of interocclusal records. Quintessence Int 2010;41:e31-e35
  24.  
    1. Eriksson A, Ockert-Eriksson G, Lockowandt P, et al: Clinical factors and clinical variation influencing the reproducibility of interocclusal recording methods. Br Dent J 2002;192:395- 400
  25.  
    1. Schneebeli E, Brägger U, Scherrer S, et al: Quality evaluation of zirconium dioxide frameworks produced in five dental laboratories from different countries. J Prosthodont 2017;26:399-409
  26.  
    1. Maness WL: Laboratory comparison of three occlusal registration methods for identification of induced interceptive contacts. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:483-487
  27.  
    1. Chaithanya R, Sajjan S, Raju AV: A study of change in occlusal contacts and force dynamics after fixed prosthetic treatment and after equilibration - using Tekscan III. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19:9-19
  28.  
    1. Helms RB, Katona TR, Eckert GJ: Do occlusal contact detection products alter the occlusion? J Oral Rehabil 2012;39:357-363
  29.  
    1. Mitchem JA, Katona TR, Moser EA: Does the presence of an occlusal indicator product affect the contact forces between full dentitions? J Oral Rehabil 2017;44:791-799
  30.  
    1. Reich S, Trentzsch L, Gozdowski S, et al: In vitro analysis of laboratory-processed and CAD/CAM-generated occlusal onlay surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2008;22:620-622
  31.  
    1. Davies SJ, Gray RJ, Young MP: Good occlusal practice in the provision of implant borne prostheses. Br Dent J 2002;192:79-88
  32.  
    1. Kim Y, Oh T, Misch C, et al: Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:26-35

Page Navigation