Objective To compare the marginal adaptation of single anterior restorations with different systems in vitro. Methods Thirty working dies were created from a single master die and used to fabricate copings as follows: group A (Ceramage, Shofu;re = 10), group B (Kavo Zirconia,KAVO;n = 10) and group C (IPS e.max press, ivoclar vivadent; n = 10). All the copings were fabricated according to manufacturers. The restorations were seated on the master die, and high-resolution digital photographs were made of the marginal area on both sides. The vertical marginal gap dimension was then measured using a calibrated digital software program. One-way ANOVA and LSD tests were used to determine statistically significant differences. Results Mean gap dimensions and standard deviations at the marginal opening for the incisor crowns were (43.75 ± 6.80 )iam for group A, (51.71 ±6.50)um for group B and (55.75 ±8.48)um for group C, respectively. A statistically significant difference was found among three groups (PAB<0.01 ,PAC<0.01 ,PBC<0.01). Conclusion The marginal gaps of three different aesthetic crown systems are all within the clinically acceptable standard set at 120μm. However, the Ceramage system shows the smallest gap dimension, whereas the IPS e.max press system presents the largest gap dimension among the three groups.%目的 评价聚合瓷、CAD/CAM氧化锆全瓷及铸造陶瓷3种不同美学修复体的边缘适合度.方法 制作上颌中切牙全冠牙体制备标准金属代型一个,复制并灌注石膏模型后分别制作聚合瓷、CAD/CAM氧化锆全瓷及铸瓷基底冠各10个,并依次将其就位于金属标准代型上.在体式显微镜下对基底冠边缘与金属代型肩台之间的适合度进行观察,并用数字图像捕捉系统进行成像,用专业图像测量软件测量边缘缝隙宽度.最后计算各组10个样本的平均值,并进行比较.结果 聚合瓷、CAD/CAM氧化锆全瓷和铸瓷基底冠的平均边缘缝隙宽度值分别为(43.75±6.80)、(51.71±6.50)和(55.75±8.48)μm,3组之间的差异均有统计学意义,其中聚合瓷基底冠显著小于CAD/CAM氧化锆全瓷和铸瓷基底冠,而CAD/CAM氧化锆全瓷基底冠边小于铸瓷(P＜0.01).结论 3种美学修复基底冠的边缘适合度均在临床可接受范围,然而聚合瓷基底冠要显著高于其它两种美学修复冠.
展开▼
