The aim of the study was to evaluate the marginal adaptation of various hybrid ceramics inlays before and after thermal cycling. Twenty-four extracted human molars were received inlay preparation, and randomly divided into three groups (n = 8/group). Specimens were restored with Ceramage by experienced technician, Enamic or Lava Ultimate by CAD/CAM using CEREC Omnicam. After cementation, all restorations were subjected to thermal cycling. Marginal gaps were measured under a stereomicroscope. The overall mean marginal gaps of the three groups were significantly different (p< 0.05) before thermal cycling, which were all within the clinically acceptable range. The digital intraoral impression and CAD/CAM systems did not show superior accuracy compared to the traditional technique, during the hybrid ceramic inlays manufactured operation. Thermal cycling had no effect on marginal adaptation of the different hybrid ceramic inlays (p> 0.05). Gingival margin presented larger gaps compared to occlusal and axial margin in all hybrid ceramic inlays.
BaroneA, DerchiG, RossiA, Longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded composite inlays: a 3-year study. Quintessence Int. 2008;39:65–71.
3.
RippeM, MonacoC, VolpeL, Different methods for inlay production: effect on internal and marginal adaptation, adjustment time, and contact point. Oper Dent. 2017;42(4):436–444. doi: 10.2341/16-093-L
4.
ReissB, WaltherW.Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of Cerec restorations. Int J Comput Dent. 2000;3(1):9–23.
5.
OttoT, De NiscoS.Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(2):122–128.
6.
RekowED, SilvaNR, CoelhoPG.Performance of dental ceramics: challenges for improvement. J Dent Res. 2011;90(8):937–952. doi: 10.1177/0022034510391795
7.
VagropoulouGI, KlifopoulouGL, VlahouSG, Complications and survival rates of inlays and onlays vs. complete coverage restorations: a systematic review and analysis of studies. J Oral Rehabil. 2018;45:903–920. doi: 10.1111/joor.12695
8.
MarkJE.Ceramic-reinforced polymers and polymer-modified ceramics. Polym Eng Sci. 1996;36(24):2905–2920. doi: 10.1002/pen.10692
Della BonaA, CorazzaPH, ZhangY.Characterization of a polymer- infiltrated ceramic-network material. Dent Mater. 2014;30:564–569. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.02.019
14.
StawarczykB, LiebermannA, EichbergerM, Evaluation of mechanical and optical behavior of current esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015;55:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.10.004
15.
LauvahutanonS, TakahashiH, ShiozawaM, Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J. 2014;33:705–710. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2014-208
TsitrouEA, NortheastSE, van NoortR.Brittleness index of machinable dental materials and its relation to the marginal chipping factor. J Dent. 2007;35:897–902. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.002
18.
LebonN, TapieL, VennatE, Influence of CAD/CAM tool and material on tool wear and roughness of dental prostheses after milling. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:236–247. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.021
19.
ZaghloulH, ElkassasDW, HaridyMF.Effect of incorporation of silane in the bonding agent on the repair potential of machinable esthetic blocks. Eur J Dent. 2014;8:44–52. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.126240
DenissenH, DozicA, van der ZelJ, Marginal fit and short-term clinical performance of porcelain-veneered CICERO, CEREC, and procera onlays. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:506–513. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2000.110258
22.
JokstadA.Secondary caries and microleakage. Dent Mater. 2016;32(1):11–25. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.006
23.
LarsonTD.The clinical significance of marginal fit. Northwest Dent. 2012;91(1):22.
24.
BullardR, LeinfelderK, RusselC.Effect of coefficient of thermal expansion on microleakage. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988;116:871–874. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1988.0291
25.
CenciMS, Pereira-CenciT, DonassolloTA, Influence of thermal stress on marginal integrity of restorative materials. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008;16(2):106–110. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572008000200005
26.
KokuboY, TsumitaM, KanoT, Clinical marginal and internal gaps of zirconia all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;55:40–43.
27.
Sarkis-OnofreR, SkupienJA, CenciMS, The role of resin cement on bond strength of glass-fiber posts luted into root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Oper Dent. 2014;39:E31–E44. doi: 10.2341/13-070-LIT
28.
GrotenM, AxmannD, PröbsterL, Determination of the minimum number of marginal gap measurements required for practical in vitro testing. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83:40–49. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70087-4
29.
BottinoMA, CamposF, RamosNC, Inlays made from a hybrid material: adaptation and bond strength. Oper Dent. 2015;40:E83–E91. doi: 10.2341/13-343-L
30.
KimDY, KimJH, KimHY, Comparison and evaluation of marginal and internal gaps in cobalt-chromium alloy copings fabricated using subtractive and additive manufacturing. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62:56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.05.008
31.
KaleE, SekerE, YilmazB, Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:890–895. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.006
32.
McLeanJW, von FraunhoferJA.The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971;131:107–111. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708
33.
BelserUC, MacEnteeMI, RichterWA.Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;53:24–29. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90058-7
34.
SailerI, FeherA, FilserF, Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20:383–388.
35.
Da CostaJB, PelogiaF, HagedornB, Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D. Oper Dent. 2010;35(3):324–329. doi: 10.2341/09-178-L
KeshvadA, HooshmandT, AsefzadehF, Marginal gap, internal fit, and fracture load of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays fabricated by CEREC in lab and hot-pressed techniques. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(7):535–540. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00745.x
38.
OzFD, BolayS.Comparative evaluation of marginal adaptation and fracture strength of different ceramic inlays produced by CEREC omnicam and heat-pressed technique. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2018/5152703
39.
Nawa ehNA, MackF, EvansJ, Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review. J Prosthodont. 2013;22:419–428. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12006
40.
Sener-YamanerID, SertgözA, Toz-AkalınT, Effect of material and fabrication technique on marginal fit and fracture resistance of adhesively luted inlays made of CAD/CAM ceramics and hybrid materials. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2017;31:55–70. doi: 10.1080/01694243.2016.1204144
41.
ParkSH, YooYJ, ShinYJ, Marginal and internal fit of nano-composite CAD/CAM restorations. Restor Dent Endod. 2016;41:37–43. doi: 10.5395/rde.2016.41.1.37
42.
UzgurR, ErcanE, UzgurZ, Cement thickness of inlay restorations made of lithium disilicate, polymer-infiltrated ceramic and nano-ceramic CAD/CAM materials evaluated using 3D x-ray micro- computed tomography. J Prosthodont. 2018;27:456–460. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12521
43.
RippeMP, MonacoC, VolpeL, Different methods for inlay production: effect on internal and marginal adaptation, adjustment time, and contact point. Oper Dent. 2017;42:436–444. doi: 10.2341/16-093-L
44.
BortolottoT, OnisorI, KrejciI.Proximal direct composite restorations and chairside CAD/CAM inlays: marginal adaptation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel conditioning. Clin Oral Investig. 2007;11:35–43. doi: 10.1007/s00784-006-0076-x
45.
IlgensteinI, ZitzmannNU, BühlerJ, Influence of proximal box elevation on the marginal quality and fracture behavior of root-filled molars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic or composite onlays. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19:1021–1028. doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1325-z
46.
GoujatA, AbouelleilH, ColonP, Mechanical properties and internal fit of 4 CAD-CAM block materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:384–389. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.001
47.
GuessPC, VagkopoulouT, ZhangY, Marginal and internal fit of heat pressed versus CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic onlays after exposure to thermo-mechanical fatigue. J Dent. 2014;42:199–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.10.002
48.
SandovalMJ, RoccaGT, KrejciI, In vitro evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of class II CAD/CAM ceramic restorations with different resinous bases and interface treatments. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19:2167–2177. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1449-9
49.
StappertCF, ChitmongkolsukS, SilvaNR, Effect of mouth-motion fatigue and thermal cycling on the marginal accuracy of partial coverage restorations made of various dental materials. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1248–1257. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.02.005
50.
FrankenbergerR, HehnJ, HajtóJ, Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:177–183. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0677-5
51.
HomsyFR, ÖzcanM, KhouryM, Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate inlays fabricated with milling, 3D printing, and conventional technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;119(5):783–790. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.025
52.
AddiS, Hedayati-KhamsA, PoyaA, Interface gap size of manually and CAD/CAM manufactured ceramic inlay/onlays in vitro. J Dent. 2002;30(1):53–58. doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00059-8
53.
KimJH, ChoBH, LeeJH, Influence of preparation design on fit and ceramic thickness of CEREC 3 partial ceramic crowns after cementation. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015;73:107–113. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2014.956145
KirschC, EnderA, AttinT, Trueness of four different milling procedures used in dental CAD/CAM systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:551–558. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1916-y
56.
HoopCD, LandMF.Considerations for ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: a review. Clinical. 2013;18(5):21–32.
57.
NalcaiA, UlusoyN.Effect of thermocycling on microleakage of resin composites polymerized with LED curing techniques. Quintessence Int. 2007;38:433–439.
58.
WendtSL, McInnesPM, DickinsonGL.The effect of thermocycling in microleakage analysis. Dent Mater. 1992;8:181–184. doi: 10.1016/0109-5641(92)90079-R
59.
RaskinA, D'HooreW, GonthierS, Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: a literature review. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3:295–308.
60.
International Standards Organization. Guidance on testing of adhesion to tooth structure. ISO/TR 11405. Dent Mater. 1994;1994:1–14.
61.
GaleMS, DarvellBW.Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent. 1999;27(2):89–99. doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00037-2
62.
StewardsonDA, ShortallAC, MarquisPM.The effect of clinically relevant thermocycling on the flexural properties of endodontic post materials. J Dent. 2010;38(5):437–442. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.02.003
63.
DeLongR, PintadoMR, KoCC, Factors influencing optical 3D scanning of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. J Prosthodont. 2001;10:78–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2001.00078.x
64.
El ZohairyAA, De GeeAJ, MohsenMM, Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater. 2003;19:575–583. doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00107-0
65.
AlghazzawiTF.Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60:72–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.01.003
