The fitness of self-glazed zirconia (SGZ) onlays fabricated with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing was analysed, and conventional impressions (CIs) were compared with intraoral digital impressions (DIs). Onlay preparation was applied on a typodont left mandibular first molar to create 22 copy dies, which were divided into DI and CI groups. The marginal gap of DI-fabricated onlays was smaller than that of CI-fabricated onlays (p < 0.05). In both groups, the marginal gap was larger in the distal gingival than in other regions (p < 0.05), and a trend of decreasing marginal accuracy after thermal cycling was observed. SGZ onlays performed well for internal fitness; the overall internal gaps were 72.05 ± 8.16 and 100.96 ± 22.53 μm in Groups DI and CI, respectively. SGZ onlays exhibited clinically acceptable marginal and internal fitness values. The marginal adaptation of DI-fabricated onlays was better than that of CI-fabricated onlays.
LiuY, WangY, WangD, Self-glazed zirconia reducing the wear to tooth enamel. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2016;36(12):2889–2894.
2.
ShenZ, LiuL, XuX, Fractography of self-glazed zirconia with improved reliability. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2017;37(14):4339–4345.
3.
TaoY, CuiX, ZhangD, The application potential of self-glazed zirconia crowns confirmed by easy grinding and polishing of the enamel-like surface. Adv Appl Ceram. 2020;119(5–6):1–8.
4.
[4] FerroKJ, MorganoSM, DriscollCF, The glossary of prosthodontic terms: ninth edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(5): C1, e1–e105.
5.
MerrillTC, MackeyT, LucR, Effect of chairside CAD/CAM restoration type on marginal fit accuracy: a comparison of crown, inlay and onlay restorations. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2021;29(2):119–127.
6.
AlexisG, HazemA, PierreC, Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations: a systematic review of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(4):590–597.e3.
7.
LarsonTD.The clinical significance of marginal fit. Northwest Dent. 2012;91(1):22.
8.
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(11):903–920.
9.
SchaeferO, WattsDC, SiguschBW, Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility. Dent Mater. 2012;28(3):320–326.
10.
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(1):56–64.
11.
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 microcomputed tomography. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(5):456–460.
12.
TuntiprawonM, WilsonPR.The effect of cement thickness on the fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Aust Dent J. 1995;40(1):17–21.
13.
GüthJF, EdelhoffD, SchweigerJ, A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(7):1487–1494.
14.
KimKB, KimJH, KimWC, Three-dimensional evaluation of gaps associated with fixed dental prostheses fabricated with new technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(6):1432–1436.
15.
YangX, LvP, LiuY, Accuracy of digital impressions and fitness of single crowns based on digital impressions. Materials. 2015;8(7):3945–3957.
16.
Abdel-AzimT, RogersK, ElathamnaE, Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(4):554–559.
17.
FlüggeTV, SchlagerS, NelsonK, Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;144(3):471–478.
18.
GiménezB, ÖzcanM, Martínez-RusF, Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(1):e54–e64.
19.
SeelbachP, BrueckelC, WöstmannB.Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(7):1759–1764.
20.
SyrekA, ReichG, RanftlD.Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010;38(7):553–559.
21.
PradíesG, ZarauzC, ValverdeA.Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent. 2015;43(2):201–208.
22.
RudolphH, LuthardtRG, WalterMH.Computer-aided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM technology. Comput Biol Med. 2007;37(5):579–587.
23.
JemtT, HjalmarssonL.In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between “virtual” and “physical” assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(1):e175–e182.
24.
QianK, YangX, FengH, Marginal adaptation of different hybrid ceramic inlays after thermal cycling. Adv Appl Ceram. 2020;119(5–6):284–290.
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.
27.
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.
28.
LiuY, YeH, YongW, Three-dimensional analysis of internal adaptations of crowns cast from resin patterns fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing technologies. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(4):386–393.
29.
KaleE, SekerE, YilmazB, Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(6):890–895.
30.
SailerI, FeherA, FilserF, Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(4):383–388.
31.
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(2):199–209.
32.
De NissenH, DoziA, ZelJ, Marginal fit and short-term clinical performance of porcelain-veneered CICERO, CEREC, and Procera onlays. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84(5):506–513.
33.
Revilla-LeónM, Olea-VielbaM, Esteso-SaizA, Marginal and internal gap of handmade, milled and 3d printed additive manufactured patterns for pressed lithium disilicate onlay restorations. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26(1):31–38.
34.
DukeP, MooreBK, HaugSP, Study of the physical properties of type IV gypsum, resin-containing, and epoxy die materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(4):466–473.
35.
SilvaM, VittiRP, ConsaniS, Linear dimensional change: compressive strength and detail reproduction in type IV dental stone dried at room temperature and in a microwave oven. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20(5):588–593.
36.
AhrbergD, LauerHC, AhrbergM, Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded: randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(2):291–300.
37.
GüthJH, KeulC, StimmelmayrM, Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(4):1201–1208.
38.
RudolphH, SalmenH, MoldanM, Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016;24(1):85–94.
39.
DeLongR, PintadoMR, KoCC, Factors influencing optical 3D scanning of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. J Prosthodont. 2001;10(2):78–85.
40.
MartinsF, PatríciaB, JoséR, Dimensional stability of two impression materials after a 6-month storage period. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2017;3(1):84–91.
41.
AkalinZF, OzkanYK, EkerimA.Effects of implant angulation, impression material, and variation in arch curvature width on implant transfer model accuracy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(1):149–157.
42.
PerssonA, OdénA, AnderssonM, Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater. 2009;25(7):929–936.
43.
NalcaiA, UlusoyN.Effect of thermocycling on microleakage of resin composites polymerized with LED curing techniques. Quintessence Int. 2007;38:433–439.
44.
WendtSL, McInnesPM, DickinsonGL.The effect of thermocycling in microleakage analysis. Dent Mater. 1992;8:181–184.
45.
RaskinA, D'HooreW, GonthierS, Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: a literature review. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3:295–308.
46.
StappertCF, DennerN, GerdsT, Marginal adaptation of different types of all-ceramic partial coverage restorations after exposure to an artificial mouth. Br Dent J. 2005;199:779–783.
47.
SchmalzG, FederlinM, ReichE.Effect of dimension of luting space and luting composite on marginal adaptation of a class II ceramic inlay. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;73:392–399.
48.
FeldenA, SchmalzG, FederlinM, Retrospective clinical investigation and survival analysis on ceramic inlays and partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig. 1998;2:161–167.
49.
KrämerN, FrankenbergerR, PelkaM, IPS empress inlays and onlays after four years – a clinical study. J Dent. 1999;27:325–331.
50.
KrejciI, LutzF, ReimerM.Marginal adaptation and fit of adhesive ceramic inlays. J Dent. 1993;21(1):39–46.
51.
RippeMP, 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.
52.
HoppCD, LandMF.Considerations for ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: a review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2013;5:21–32.
