Evaluation of Marginal and Internal Fit of a CAD/CAM Monolithic Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Porcelain Laminate Veneer System

Mirza Rustum Baig 1, Aqdar A Akbar 2, Mohammad Y Sabti 2, Zahra Behbehani 3

Affiliations

07 January 2022

-

doi: 10.1111/jopr.13438

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the marginal and internal fit of monolithic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ZLS (Vita Suprinity) glass ceramic porcelain laminate veneers (PLVs), in terms of marginal and internal gap widths, in comparison to monolithic lithium disilicate (LDS) [IPS e.max CAD] CAD/CAM veneers, and, also, to analyze the effect of incisal preparation designs (butt joint and chamfer), on the marginal and internal fit accuracy.

Materials and methods: Forty dental stone dies poured from impressions made of two master metal dies with different incisal preparation designs were scanned to produce digital models. Forty ceramic veneers were designed and milled using the virtual models-10 ZLS butt joint, 10 ZLS chamfer, 10 LDS butt joint, and 10 LDS chamfer. The monolithic ceramic veneers produced were then subjected to marginal and internal gap width evaluation using X-ray nano-computed tomography and computerized digital analysis (n = 10). Descriptive analyses of data were performed and the influence of "material" and "preparation design" on the marginal and internal fit of veneers was assessed using 2-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Bonferroni post-hoc multiple comparison tests were used to further analyze the interactions between the material and preparation design after adjusting the α value by Holm-Bonferroni method (α = 0.01).

Results: Mean marginal and internal gaps for ZLS PLVs were 65 ±11 μm and 112 ±14 μm for butt joint, and 100 ±24 μm and 100 ±21 μm for chamfer, respectively. Corresponding values for LDS PLVs were 78 ±25 μm and 114 ±17 μm for butt joint, and 104 ±18 μm and 106 ±7 μm for chamfer. Marginal gap and internal gap differences between ZLS and LDS PLVs were not significant (marginal gap: F = 1.786, p = 0.190; internal gap: F = 0.807, p = 0.375). However, the preparation designs (butt joint and chamfer) differed significantly in terms of marginal gaps (F = 23.797, p = 0.000), but not internal gaps (F = 3.703; p = 0.059).

Conclusions: Butt joint margins produced better marginal accuracy in terms of marginal gap, compared to chamfers, for ZLS CAD/CAM laminate veneers.

Keywords: CAD/CAM; Ceramic; Internal fit; Laminate; Lithium disilicate; Marginal fit; Veneer; Zirconia lithium silicate.

Similar articles

Evaluation of the marginal fit of a CAD/CAM zirconia-based ceramic crown system.

Baig MR, Al-Tarakemah Y, Kasim NHA, Omar R.Int J Prosthodont. 2022 May/June;35(3):319–329. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6654. Epub 2021 Feb 19.PMID: 33616567

Evaluation of marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate CAD-CAM crowns with different finish lines by using a micro-CT technique.

Rizonaki M, Jacquet W, Bottenberg P, Depla L, Boone M, De Coster PJ.J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Jun;127(6):890-898. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.027. Epub 2021 Feb 2.PMID: 33541816

Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass-Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia-Based Restorations.

Hamza TA, Sherif RM.J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan;28(1):e259-e264. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12684. Epub 2017 Oct 18.PMID: 29044828

Marginal and internal fit of porcelain laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Baig MR, Qasim SSB, Baskaradoss JK.J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Mar 5:S0022-3913(22)00052-X. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.009. Online ahead of print.PMID: 35260253 Review.

Incisal preparation design for ceramic veneers: A critical review.

Chai SY, Bennani V, Aarts JM, Lyons K.J Am Dent Assoc. 2018 Jan;149(1):25-37. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.08.031.PMID: 29304908 Review.

Cited by

Porcelain Veneers in Vital vs. Non-Vital Teeth: A Retrospective Clinical Evaluation.

Zarow M, Hardan L, Szczeklik K, Bourgi R, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Jakubowicz N, Nicastro M, Devoto W, Dominiak M, Pytko-Polończyk J, Bereziewicz W, Lukomska-Szymanska M.Bioengineering (Basel). 2023 Jan 28;10(2):168. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10020168.PMID: 36829663 Free PMC article.

Effect of Finish Line Design on the Fit Accuracy of CAD/CAM Monolithic Polymer-Infiltrated Ceramic-Network Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study.

Baig MR, Akbar AA, Embaireeg M.Polymers (Basel). 2021 Dec 9;13(24):4311. doi: 10.3390/polym13244311.PMID: 34960861 Free PMC article.

KMEL References

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

References

  1.  
    1. Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, et al: Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:79-85
  2.  
    1. Layton D, Walton T. An up to 16-year prospective study of 304 porcelain veneers. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:389-396
  3.  
    1. Morimoto S, Albanesi R, Sesma N, et al: Main clinical outcomes of feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic laminate veneers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and complication rates. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:38-49
  4.  
    1. Albanesi RB, Pigozzo MN, Sesma N, et al: Incisal coverage or not in ceramic laminate veneers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;52:1-7
  5.  
    1. Layton DM, Clarke M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival of non-feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5 and 10 years. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:111-124
  6.  
    1. Kang S-Y, Lee H-N, Kim J-H, et al: Evaluation of marginal discrepancy of pressable ceramic veneer fabricated using CAD/CAM system: additive and subtractive manufacturing. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10:347-353
  7.  
    1. Pereira D, Marquezan M, Grossi M, et al: Analysis of marginal adaptation of porcelain laminate veneers produced by computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing technology: a preliminary in-vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:346-348
  8.  
    1. Gomes RS, Souza CMCD, Bergamo ETP, et al: Misfit and fracture load of implant-supported monolithic crowns in zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate. J Appl Oral Sci 2017;25:282-289
  9.  
    1. Aboushelib MN, Elmahy WA, Ghazy MH. Internal adaptation, marginal accuracy and microleakage of a pressable versus a machinable ceramic laminate veneers. J Dent 2012;40:670-677
  10.  
    1. Hamza TA, Ezzat HA, El-Hossary MMK, et al: Accuracy of ceramic restorations made with two CAD/CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:83-87
  11.  
    1. D'arcangelo C, De Angelis F, Vadini M, et al: Clinical evaluation on porcelain laminate veneers bonded with light-cured composite: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:1071-1079
  12.  
    1. Alenezi A, Alsweed M, Alsidrani S, et al: Long-term survival and complication rates of porcelain laminate veneers in clinical studies: a systematic review. J Clin Med 2021;10:1074
  13.  
    1. Lin T-M, Liu P-R, Ramp LC, et al: Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro. J Dent 2012;40:202-209
  14.  
    1. Kusaba K, Komine F, Honda J, et al: Effect of preparation design on marginal and internal adaptation of translucent zirconia laminate veneers. Eur J Oral Sci 2018;126:507-511
  15.  
    1. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, et al: A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41:853-874
  16.  
    1. Al-Dwairi ZN, Alkhatatbeh RM, Baba NZ, et al: A comparison of the marginal and internal fit of porcelain laminate veneers fabricated by pressing and CAD-CAM milling and cemented with 2 different resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:470-476
  17.  
    1. Stappert CF, Ozden U, Att W, et al: Marginal accuracy of press-ceramic veneers influenced by preparation design and fatigue. Am J Dent 2007;20:380-384
  18.  
    1. Saker S, Özcan M. Marginal discrepancy and load to fracture of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers: the effect of preparation design and sintering protocol. Dent Mater J 2021;40:331-338
  19.  
    1. Baig M, Al-Tarakemah Y, Kasim N, et al: Evaluation of the marginal fit of a CAD/CAM zirconia-based ceramic crown system. Int J Prosthodont 2021. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6654.
  20.  
    1. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, et al: Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:405-408
  21.  
    1. Baig MR, Gonzalez MA, Abu Kasim NH, et al: Effect of operators’ experience and cement space on the marginal fit of an in-office digitally produced monolithic ceramic crown system. Quintessence Int 2016;47:181-191
  22.  
    1. Pimenta MA, Frasca LC, Lopes R, et al: Evaluation of marginal and internal fit of ceramic and metallic crown copings using X-ray microtomography (micro-CT) technology. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:223-228
  23.  
    1. Baig MR, Tan KB-C, Nicholls JI. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104:216-227
  24.  
    1. Mclean JW, Von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-111
  25.  
    1. Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, et al: Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:419-424
  26.  
    1. Contrepois M, Soenen A, Bartala M, et al: Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns; a systemic review. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110:447-454.e10
  27.  
    1. Molin MK, Karlsson SL, Kristiansen MS. Influence of film thickness on joint bend strength of a ceramic/resin composite joint. Dent Mater 1996;12:245-249
  28.  
    1. Neves FD, Prado CJ, Prudente MS, et al: Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1134-1140
  29.  
    1. Azarbal A, Azarbal M, Engelmeier RL, et al: Marginal fit comparison of CAD/CAM crowns milled from two different materials. J Prosthodont 2018;27:421-428
  30.  
    1. Gold SA, Ferracane JL, Da Costa J. Effect of crystallization firing on marginal gap of CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate crowns. J Prosthodont 2018;27:63-66
  31.  
    1. Yuce M, Ulusoy M, Turk AG. Comparison of marginal and internal adaptation of heat-pressed and CAD/CAM porcelain laminate veneers and a 2-year follow-up. J Prosthodont 2019;28:504-510
  32.  
    1. Guachetá L, Stevens CD, Tamayo Cardona JA, et al: Comparison of marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate veneers fabricated via a manual waxing technique versus a 3D printed technique. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12675

Page Navigation