A range of materials for single-tooth computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) restorations have been introduced that may affect CAM accuracy. This study aimed to review articles evaluating marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate (LD) and zirconia (Z) crowns fabricated by CAD-CAM systems using intraoral optical scanners (IOS).
Materials and methods:
Under the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA), a systematic review was performed along with an electronic article search in the Medline/Pubmed database. The articles were limited to those in the English language that were published within the past ten years.
Results:
The initial search resulted in 50 articles and of those, a total of 18 articles were selected for full-text review following abstract evaluation. Eight articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded and the remaining ten articles, which provided internal and marginal gap values, were used in this review. For LD crowns, marginal gap values ranged between 45µm and 190.2µm. For Z crowns, the values varied between 39µm and 126.4µm. For LD crowns, the internal gap values were between 57.8µm and 475.4µm, and for Z crowns, the values were between 79µm and 205.8µm.
Conclusion:
The outcome of this review suggests that clinically acceptable marginal and internal fit can be attained with LD and Z all-ceramic CAD-CAM crowns using digital impressions. Additionally, it has been found that LD and Z ceramics provide similar marginal gap values, but LD material provides better internal fit than Z.
Al HamadKQAl QuranFAAlJalamSA, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of fit of metal, zirconia, and lithium disilicate crowns made from different manufacturing techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(5):497-503.
2.
MemariYMohajerfarMArminA, et al. Marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns made by different impression methods: a literature review. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e536-e544.
3.
FreireYGonzaloELopez-SuarezC, et al. Evaluation of the marginal fit of monolithic crowns fabricated by direct and indirect digitization. J Prosthodont Res. 2021;65(3):291-297.
4.
SulaimanTAAbdulmajeedAADelgadoA, et al. Fracture rate of 188695 lithium disilicate and zirconia ceramic restorations after up to 7.5 years of clinical service: a dental laboratory survey. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(6):807-810.
5.
RiccitielloFAmatoMLeoneR, et al. In vitro evaluation of the marginal fit and internal adaptation of zirconia and lithium disilicate single crowns: micro-CT comparison between different manufacturing procedures. Open Dent J. 2018;12:160-172.
6.
LeeJHSonKLeeKB.Marginal and internal fit of ceramic restorations fabricated using digital scanning and conventional impressions: a clinical study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(12):4035.
7.
RaiRKumarSAPrabhuR, et al. Evaluation of marginal and internal gaps of metal ceramic crowns obtained from conventional impressions and casting techniques with those obtained from digital techniques. Indian J Dent Res. 2017;28(3):291-297.
8.
ZhivagoPTurkyilmazI.A comprehensive digital approach to enhance smiles using an intraoral optical scanner and advanced 3-D sculpting software. J Dent Sci. 2021;16(2):784-785.
9.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ2009;339:b2700.
10.
García-GilICortés-Bretón-BrinkmannJJimenez-GarcíaJ, et al. Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: a systematic literature review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020;12(8):e784-e793.
11.
PapadiochouSPissiotisAL.Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: A systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):545-551.
12.
BatsonERCooperLFDuqumI, et al. Clinical outcomes of three different crown systems with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(4):770-777.
13.
de AlmeidaIGAntunesDBBraunNX, et al. CAD/CAM system influence marginal fit of different ceramic types?Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(1):127-129.
14.
DahlBEDahlJERønoldHJ.Digital evaluation of marginal and internal fit of single-crown fixed dental prostheses. Eur J Oral Sci. 2018;126(6):512-517.
15.
ContrepoisMSoenenABartalaM, et al. Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(6):447-454.e10.
16.
Sadid-ZadehRDeLucaJTAranyH, et al. Assessment of teeth prepared by senior dental students for CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent Educ. 2020;84(3):358-366.
17.
DuqumISBrenesCMendoncaG, et al. Marginal fit evaluation of CAD/CAM all ceramic crowns obtained by two digital workflows: an in vitro study using micro-CT technology. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(9):1037-1043.
18.
FreireYGonzaloELopez-SuarezC, et al. The marginal fit of CAD/CAM monolithic ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(3):299-304.
19.
PirasFFFerruzziFFerrairoBM, et al. Analysis of correlation between optical and microtomography measurements of cementation space in CAD-CAM ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(1):87.e1-87.e6.
20.
ZimmermannMValcanaiaANeivaG, et al. Digital evaluation of the fit of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns with a new three-dimensional approach. Quintessence Int. 2018;49(1):9-15.
21.
SheridanRRVerrettRHaneyS, et al. Effect of split-file digital workflow on crown margin adaptation. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(7):571-580.
22.
TahaDSpintzykSSabetA, et al. Assessment of marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of endocrown restorations utilizing different machinable blocks subjected to thermomechanical aging. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018;30(4):319-328.
23.
TezulasEYildizCKucukC, et al. Current status of zirconia-based all-ceramic restorations fabricated by the digital veneering technique: a comprehensive review. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(3):217-230.
24.
ZimmermannMValcanaiaANeivaG, et al. Three-dimensional digital evaluation of the fit of endocrowns fabricated from different CAD/CAM materials. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e504-e509.
25.
El GhoulWAÖzcanMOunsiH, et al. Effect of different CAD-CAM materials on the marginal and internal adaptation of endocrown restorations: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):128-134.
26.
AlfaroDPRuseNDCarvalhoRM, et al. Assessment of the internal fit of lithium disilicate crowns using micro-CT. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(5):381-386.
27.
HuangZZhangLZhuJ, et al. Clinical marginal and internal fit of crowns fabricated using different CAD/CAM technologies. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):291-295.
28.
HamzaTAEzzatHAEl-HossaryMMKRosenstielSF., et al. Accuracy of ceramic restorations made with two CAD/CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(2):83-87.
29.
NgJRuseDWyattC.A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(3):555-560.
30.
MonacoCRosentrittMLlukacejA, et al. Marginal adaptation, gap width, and fracture strength of teeth restored with different all-ceramic vs metal ceramic crown systems: an in vitro study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2016;24(3):130-137.
31.
DahlBERønoldHJDahlJE.Internal fit of single crowns produced by CAD-CAM and lost-wax metal casting technique assessed by the triple-scan protocol. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):400-404.
32.
HasanzadeMSahebiMZarratiS, et al. Comparative evaluation of the internal and marginal adaptations of CAD/CAM endocrowns and crowns fabricated from three different materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34(3):341-347.
33.
Martinez-RusFFerreiroaAOzcanM, et al. Marginal discrepancy of monolithic and veneered all-ceramic crowns on titanium and zirconia implant abutments before and after adhesive cementation: a scanning electron microscopy analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(2):480-487.
34.
HasanzadeMMoharramiMAlikhasiM.Evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of endocrowns fabricated from three different CAD/CAM materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2019;27(4):164-171.
35.
HasanzadeMMoharramiMAlikhasiM.How adjustment could affect internal and marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM crowns made with different materials. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12(6):344-350.
36.
ÖzsürmeliHTürkerŞB.In Vitro Evaluation of the marginal and internal accuracy of different types of dental ceramic restorations fabricated based on digital and conventional impressions. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34(1):61-69.
37.
SağlamGCengizSKaracaerÖ.Marginal adaptation and fracture strength of endocrowns manufactured with different restorative materials: SEM and mechanical evaluation. Microsc Res Tech. 2021;84(2):284-290.
38.
MelloCCLemosCAAde Luna GomesJM, et al. CAD/CAM vs conventional technique for fabrication of implant-supported frameworks: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2019;32(2):182-192.
39.
HsuPRamosVJrSadrA.Microcomputed tomography evaluation of cement shrinkage under zirconia versus lithium disilicate veneers. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(2):307-315.
40.
GomesRSde SouzaCMCBergamoETP, et al. Misfit and fracture load of implant-supported monolithic crowns in zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate. J Appl Oral Sci. 2017;25(3):282-289.
41.
VargasSPNevesACCVittiR, et al. Influence of different ceramic systems on marginal misfit. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2017;25(3):127-130.
42.
ZauggLKMeyerSRohrN, et al. Fracture behavior, marginal gap width, and marginal quality of vented or pre-cemented CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns luted on Y-TZP implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(2):175-184.
43.
RanganathanHGanapathyDMJainAR.Cervical and incisal marginal discrepancy in ceramic laminate veneering materials: a SEM analysis. Contemp Clin Dent. 2017;8(2):272-278.
44.
NasrinSKatsubeNSeghiRR, et al. Survival predictions of ceramic crowns using statistical fracture mechanics. J Dent Res. 2017;96(5):509-515.
45.
PimentaMAFrascaLCLopesR, 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(2):223-228.
46.
DahlBEDahlJERønoldHJ.Internal fit of three-unit fixed dental prostheses produced by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing and the lost-wax metal casting technique assessed using the triple-scan protocol. Eur J Oral Sci. 2018;126(Suppl 3):66-73.
47.
ParkJYBaeSYLeeJJ, et al. Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9(3):159-169.
48.
JiMKParkJHParkSW, et al. Evaluation of marginal fit of 2 CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown systems and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crown. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7(4):271-277.
49.
PreisVBehrMHahnelS, et al. Influence of cementation on in vitro performance, marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM-fabricated ZLS molar crowns. Dent Mater. 2015;31(11):1363-1369.
50.
BaigMRAl-TarakemahYKasimNHA, et al. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a CAD/CAM zirconia-based ceramic crown system. Int J Prosthodont. 2022;35(3):319-329.
51.
IoannidisAParkJMHüslerJ, et al. An in vitro comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of ultrathin occlusal veneers made of 3D-printed zirconia, milled zirconia, and heat-pressed lithium disilicate. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(4):709-715.
52.
DhimaMPaulusovaVCarrAB, et al. Practice-based clinical evaluation of ceramic single crowns after at least five years. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(2):124-130.
53.
HataiY.Extreme masking: achieving predictable outcomes in challenging situations with lithium disilicate bonded restorations. Int J Esthet Dent. 2014;9(2):206-222.
54.
ChoYRaigrodskiAJ.The rehabilitation of an edentulous mandible with a CAD/CAM zirconia framework and heat-pressed lithium disilicate ceramic crowns: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(6):443-447.
55.
SiqueiraFSAlessiRSCardenasAF, et al. New single-bottle ceramic primer: 6-month case report and laboratory performance. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(12):1033-1039.
56.
SantosGCJrBoksmanLLSantosMJ.CAD/CAM technology and esthetic dentistry: a case report. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013;34(10):764, 766, 768 passim.
57.
GoujatAAbouelleilHColonP, et al. 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.
58.
TabeshMNejatidaneshFSavabiG, et al. Marginal adaptation of zirconia complete-coverage fixed dental restorations made from digital scans or conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(4):603-610.
59.
HasanzadeMAminikhahMAfrashtehfarKI, et al. Marginal and internal adaptation of single crowns and fixed dental prostheses by using digital and conventional workflows: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(3):360-368.
60.
BosniacPRehmannPWöstmannB.Comparison of an indirect impression scanning system and two direct intraoral scanning systems in vivo. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(5):2421-2427.
