Are different generations of CAD/CAM milling machines capable to produce restorations with similar quality?

Autor:	Roperto R; DDS, MS, PhD, Department of Comprehensive Care, School of Dental Medicine - Case Western Reserve University, 2124 Cornell Rd, Cleveland, 44106, USA., Assaf H; DDS, MS, Department of Comprehensive Care, School of Dental Medicine - Case Western Reserve University, 2124 Cornell Rd, Cleveland, 44106, USA., Soares-Porto T; DDS, MS, Department of Comprehensive Care, School of Dental Medicine - Case Western Reserve University, 2124 Cornell Rd, Cleveland, 44106, USA., Lang L; DDS, MS, MBA, Department of Comprehensive Care, School of Dental Medicine - Case Western Reserve University, 2124 Cornell Rd, Cleveland, 44106, USA., Teich S; DDS, MBA, Department of Comprehensive Care, School of Dental Medicine - Case Western Reserve University, 2124 Cornell Rd, Cleveland, 44106, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry [J Clin Exp Dent] 2016 Oct 01; Vol. 8 (4), pp. e423-e428. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Oct 01 (Print Publication: 2016).
DOI:	10.4317/jced.52984
Abstrakt:	Background: Different CAD/CAM machines' generation may impact the restoration overall quality. The present study evaluated the marginal fit of CAD/CAM restorations manufactured with different generations of CEREC milling unit systems. Material and Methods: Sixteen typodont teeth were divided into two groups (n=8) according to the machine's generation assigned. These are control group (G1): Cerec AC with Bluecam/Cerec 3 milling unit and (G2): Cerec AC with Bluecam/MC XL Premium Package milling unit. Scanning of the preparation were performed and crowns were milled using the Vita Mark II blocks. Blocks were cemented using epoxy glue on the pulpal floor only and finger pressure applied for 1 min. Upon completion of the cementation step, misfits between the restoration and abutment were measured by microphotography and the silicone replica technique using light body silicon material on Mesial (M) and Distal (D) surfaces. Results: Mean and SDs of marginal gaps in micrometers were: G1/M: 94.90 (±38.52), G1/D: 88.53 (±44.87), G2/M: 85.65 (±29.89), G2/D: 95.28 (±28.13). Two-way ANOVA indicated no significant differences among different groups ( P >0.05); surface area ( P >0.05) and the interaction ( P >0.05). Overall, G2 had greater margin gaps than G1, however, without statistical difference ( P >0.05). Conclusions: Difference in milling unit generation did not significantly affect the marginal fit. Marginal gap means were in the range of the clinical acceptance levels for both generations of Cerec milling units, regardless the teeth site area. Key words: CAD/CAM, margin, ceramics. Competing Interests: We state that all authors don’t have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) this work. We also state that neither employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patents or patent applications, travel grants, all within 3 years of beginning the work submission were involved in this study.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu