Hafif işlenmiş monolitik zirkonya kronların majinal uyumlarının karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, beş farklı hafif işlenmiş monolitik zirkonya materyalinin marjinal uyumunu karşılaştırmaktı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Akrilik bir model üzerindeki mandibular sağ birinci molar dişi, standart boyutlarda elmas frezlerle prepare edildi. Lazer sinterleme yöntemiyle Co-Cr alaşımı kullanılarak 50 adet metal kopya üretildi ve beş gruba ayrıldı (n=10). Tüm kopyalar bir CAD/CAM sistemi ile tarandı ve 1,5 mm oklüzal kalınlıkta ve 20 µm siman boşluğuna sahip zirkonya kronlar üretildi. Sinterleme sonrası, marjinal boşluklar silikon replika tekniği kullanılarak ölçüldü. Elde edilen silikon replikalar meziodistal ve bukkolingual yönlerde bir bistüri ile dört parçaya bölündü. Örneklerin marjinal boşlukları, 10× büyütmede bir stereo mikroskop kullanılarak incelendi. Ölçümler, kron marjininin semento-mine birleşimine en yakın olduğu dört belirli noktada (mezial, distal, bukkal ve lingual) gerçekleştirildi. Her kron için ölçümler üç kez tekrarlandı ve ortalama değer kaydedildi. Toplamda 50 kron için 600 ölçüm yapıldı. İstatistiksel analiz tek yönlü ANOVA ve Tukey HSD testi ile gerçekleştirildi (p < 0,05). Bulgular: Zirkonya grupları arasında anlamlı farklılıklar bulundu (p < 0,001). En yüksek marjinal aralık Zenostar grubunda gözlendi (92 ± 22 µm), bunu Katana (81 ± 18 µm) ve Incoris TZI (66 ± 20 µm) izledi. En düşük değerler ise Bruxzir (46 ± 9 µm) ve Prettau (48 ± 23 µm) gruplarında kaydedildi. Zenostar ve Katana, Prettau ve Bruxzir'e kıyasla anlamlı şekilde daha büyük marjinal aralık gösterdi (p < 0,05), Incoris TZI ise anlamlı fark göstermeyen orta seviyede değerler sundu. Tüm grupların marjinal aralığı klinik olarak kabul edilebilir sınırlar içinde kaldı (<120 µm). Sonuç: Test edilen tüm monolitik zirkonya materyalleri klinik olarak kabul edilebilir marjinal uyum sergilemiştir. Ancak materyaller arasında anlamlı farklar gözlenmiştir; Bruxzir ve Prettau, Zenostar ve Katana’ya kıyasla daha iyi marjinal adaptasyon göstermiştir.

Keywords

• yttria stabilize tetragonal zirkonya
• dental marjinal uyum
• dental kron

Comparison of the marginal fit of soft-machined monolithic zirconia crowns

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the marginal fit of five different soft machined monolithic zirconia materials. Methods: A mandibular right first molar on an acrylic model was prepared with standardized dimensions using diamond burs. Fifty metal duplicates were fabricated via laser sintering with Co-Cr alloy and divided into five groups (n=10). All duplicates were scanned using a CAD/CAM system, and zirconia crowns with a 1.5mm occlusal thickness and 20µm cement space were produced. Following sintering, marginal gaps were measured using the silicone replica technique. The obtained silicone replicas were sectioned into four parts mesiodistally and buccolingually using a scalpel. The marginal gaps of the samples were examined using a stereomicroscope under 10×magnification. Marginal gap measurements were performed at four specific points where the crown margin was closest to the cemento-enamel junction: mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual. For each crown, the measurements were repeated three times, and the mean value was recorded. A total of 600 measurements were performed for 50 crowns. Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (p<0.05). Results: Significant differences were found among the zirconia groups (p<0.001). Zenostar exhibited the highest marginal gap (92±22µm), followed by Katana (81±18µm) and Incoris TZI (66±20µm). The lowest values were recorded in the Bruxzir (46±9µm) and Prettau (48±23µm) groups. Zenostar and Katana showed significantly larger marginal gaps compared to Prettau and Bruxzir (p<0.05), while Incoris TZI presented intermediate values without significant differences. Conclusion: All tested monolithic zirconia materials demonstrated clinically acceptable marginal fit. However, notable differences were observed among materials, with Bruxzir and Prettau showing superior marginal fit compared to Zenostar and Katana.

Keywords

• Yttria stabilized tetragonal zirconia
• dental marginal adaptation
• dental crown

References

1. Hayran Y, Kuşçu S, Sarıkaya I. Evaluation of shear bond strength of different resin cements after zirconia surface treatments. EADS. 2021; 48(1):7-12. doi:10.52037/eads.2021.0005
2. Sarıkaya I, Hayran Y. Effects of dynamic aging on the wear and fracture strength of monolithic zirconia restorations. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18(1):146. doi:10.1186/s12903-018-0618-z
3. Hayran Y, Kuşcu S, Aydın A. Determination of streptococcus mutans retention in acidic and neutral pH artificial saliva environment of all-ceramic materials with different surface treatment. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):7. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-05386-0
4. Tekin YH, Hayran Y. Fracture resistance and marginal fit of the zirconia crowns with varied occlusal thickness. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12(5): 283-290. doi:10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.283
5. de Lima E, Meira JBC, Özcan M, Cesar PF. Chipping of veneering ceramics in zirconium dioxide fixed dental prosthesis. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2015;2:169-173. doi:10.1007/s40496-015-0066-7
6. Sulaiman TA, Abdulmajeed AA, Donovan TE, Cooper LF, Walter R. Fracture rate of monolithic zirconia restorations up to 5 years: a dental laboratory survey. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(3):436-439. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.033
7. Stawarczyk B, Özcan M, Hallmann L, Ender A, Mehl A, Hämmerlet CH. The effect of zirconia sintering temperature on flexural strength, grain size, and contrast ratio. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(1):269-274. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0692-6
8. Xu J, Li L, Chen M, Paulo Davim J. An experimental investigation on milling features of fully-sintered zirconia ceramics using PCD tools. Materials Manufacturing Processes. 2022;37(3):318-326. doi:10.1080/10426914.2021.1973030

9. Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater. 2008;24(3):299-307. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.007
10. Harris IR, Wickens JL. A comparison of the fit of spark-eroded titanium copings and cast gold alloy copings. Int J Prosthodont. 1994;7(4):348-355.
11. Abbate MF, Tjan AH, Fox WM. Comparison of the marginal fit of various ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;61(5):527-531. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90270-9
12. Groten M, Girthofer S, Pröbster L. Marginal fit consistency of copy-milled all-ceramic crowns during fabrication by light and scanning electron microscopic analysis in vitro. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24(12):871-881. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00592.x
13. Shafagh I. Plaque accumulation on cast gold complete crowns polished by a conventional and an experimental method. J Prosthet Dent. 1986; 55(3):339-342. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(86)90116-2
14. McLean J, Von Fraunhofer J. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971;131(3):107-111. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj. 4802708
15. Schriwer C, Skjold A, Gjerdet NR, Øilo M. Monolithic zirconia dental crowns. Internal fit, margin quality, fracture mode and load at fracture. Dent Mater. 2017;33(9):1012-1020. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2017.06.009
16. Matsui K, Yoshida H, Ikuhara Y. Isothermal sintering effects on phase separation and grain growth in yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal. J Am Ceram Soc. 2009;92(2):467-475. doi:10.1111/j.1551-2916. 2008.02861.x
17. Zhang Y. Making yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia translucent. Dent Mater. 2014;30(10):1195-1203. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2014.08.375
18. Matsuzaki F, Sekine H, Honma S, et al. Translucency and flexural strength of monolithic translucent zirconia and porcelain-layered zirconia. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(6):910-917. doi:10.4012/dmj.2015-107
19. Usta Kutlu İ, Hayran Y. Influence of various fabrication techniques and porcelain firing on the accuracy of metal-ceramic crowns. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):845. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04634-7
20. Park J-Y, Bae S-Y, Lee J-J, Kim J-H, Kim H-Y, Kim W-C. 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. doi:10. 4047/jap.2017.9.3.159
21. Sulaiman TA, Abdulmajeed AA, Donovan TE, et al. Optical properties and light irradiance of monolithic zirconia at variable thicknesses. Dent Mater. 2015;31(10):1180-1187. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.06.016
22. Zhang Y, Mai Z, Barani A, Bush M, Lawn B. Fracture-resistant monolithic dental crowns. Dent Mater. 2016;32(3):442-449. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.12.010
23. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(11):853-874. doi:10.1111/joor.12205
24. Abduo J, Lyons K, Waddell N, Bennani V, Swain M. A comparison of fit of CNC-milled titanium and zirconia frameworks to implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(Suppl 1):e20-e29. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010. 00334.x
25. Munoz-Saldana J, Balmori-Ramirez H, Jaramillo-Vigueras D, Iga T, Schneider G. Mechanical properties and low-temperature aging of tetragonal zirconia polycrystals processed by hot isostatic pressing. J Materials Res. 2003;18(10):2415-2426.
26. Kelly JR, Denry I. Stabilized zirconia as a structural ceramic: an overview. Dent Mater. 2008;24(3):289-298. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.005
27. Inokoshi M, Zhang F, De Munck J, et al. Influence of sintering conditions on low-temperature degradation of dental zirconia. Dent Mater. 2014;30(6):669-678. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2014.03.005
28. Denry I. How and when does fabrication damage adversely affect the clinical performance of ceramic restorations? Dent Mater. 2013;29(1):85-96. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2012.07.001
29. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont. 2017; 26(7):581-586. doi:10.1111/jopr.12446
30. Ji M-K, Park J-H, Park S-W, Yun K-D, Oh G-J, Lim H-P. 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. doi:10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.271
31. Kale E, Seker E, Yilmaz B, Özcelik TB. Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosth Dent. 2016;116(6):890-895. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.006
32. Kocaağaoğlu H, Kılınç HI, Albayrak H. Effect of digital impressions and production protocols on the adaptation of zirconia copings. J Prosth Dent. 2017;117(1):102-108. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.004
33. Sachs C, Groesser J, Stadelmann M, Schweiger J, Erdelt K, Beuer F. Full-arch prostheses from translucent zirconia: accuracy of fit. Dent Mater. 2014;30(8):817-823. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2014.05.001
34. Pera P, Gilodi S, Bassi F, Carossa S. In vitro marginal adaptation of alumina porcelain ceramic crowns. J Prosth Dent. 1994;72(6):585-590. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(94)90289-5
35. Sulaiman F, Chai J, Wozniak WT. A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1997; 10(5):478-84.
36. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Fit of all-ceramic posterior fixed partial denture frameworks in vitro. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007; 27(6):567-575.
37. Bindl A, Mörmann W. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehab. 2005;32(6): 441-447. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01446.x
38. Komine F, Gerds T, Witkowski S, Strub JR. Influence of framework configuration on the marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide ceramic anterior four-unit frameworks. Acta Odontol Scand. 2005;63(6):361-366. doi:10.1080/00016350500264313
39. Martínez-Rus F, Suárez MJ, Rivera B, Pradíes G. Evaluation of the absolute marginal discrepancy of zirconia-based ceramic copings. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;105(2):108-114. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60009-7
40. Tsitrou EA, Northeast SE, van Noort R. Evaluation of the marginal fit of three margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD/CAM. J Dent. 2007;35(1):68-73. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2006.04.008
41. Shearer B, Gough MB, Setchell DJ. Influence of marginal configuration and porcelain addition on the fit of In-Ceram crowns. Biomaterials. 1996;17(19):1891-1895. doi:10.1016/0142-9612(95)00302-9
42. Rahme H, Tehini G, Adib S, Ardo A, Rifai K. In vitro evaluation of the “replica technique” in the measurement of the fit of Procera crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008;9(2):25-32.
43. Beuer F, Naumann M, Gernet W, Sorensen JA. Precision of fit: zirconia three-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clinic Oral Investing. 2009;13(3):343-349. doi:10.1007/s00784-008-0224-6
44. Att W, Komine F, Gerds T, Strub JR. Marginal adaptation of three different zirconium dioxide three-unit fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;101(4):239-247. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60047-0
45. Suárez MJ, De Villaumbrosia PG, Pradíes G, Lozano JF. Comparison of the marginal fit of Procera All Ceram crowns with two finish lines. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16(3):229-232.
46. Gavelis J, Morency J, Riley E, Sozio R. The effect of various finish line preparations on the marginal seal and occlusal seat of full crown preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;45(2):138-145. doi:10.1016/0022-3913 (81)90330-9
47. Quintas AF, Oliveira F, Bottino MA. Vertical marginal discrepancy of ceramic copings with different ceramic materials, finish lines, and luting agents: an in vitro evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(3):250-257. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.06.023
48. Baig MR, Tan KB-C, Nicholls JI. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;104(4):216-227. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60128-X
49. Leong D, Chai J, Lautenschlager E, Gilbert J. Marginal fit of machine-milled titanium and cast titanium single crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1994;7(5):440-447.