Factors Affecting the Marginal Fit of CAD-CAM Restorations and Concepts to Improve Outcomes
- 11 Downloads
Purpose of Review
With the advent of CAD-CAM technology, it is essential to examine factors that affect outcomes of restorations fabricated by the new methodologies.
This report assesses and compares ceramic crown fabrication systems to determine what factors affect marginal fit and provide solutions for better outcomes.
The review revealed key scientific evidence about what factors influence the marginal fit of CAD-CAM ceramic restorations. Solutions were recommended to help the clinician achieve greater long-term success when providing this treatment to their patients. The dental microscope enables the dental practitioner to achieve improved clinical outcomes in all phases of restorative dentistry, especially CAD-CAM restorations.
KeywordsCAD-CAM Marginal fit Marginal Gap Ceramic restoration Dental Microscope
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.• Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41:853–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12205This review emphasized deficiency in the number of clinical studies on accuracy of CAD-CAM restorations and inconsistency in protocols preclude solid evidenced based conclusions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.• Papadiochou S, Pissiotis AL. Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: A systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):545–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.001This review concluded there is lack of evidence to conclude CAD-CAM restorations have superior marginal adaptation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.•• Schestatsky R, Zucuni CP, Venturini AB, de Lima Burgo TA, Bacchi A, Valandro LF, et al. CAD-CAM milled versus pressed lithium-disilicate monolithic crowns adhesively cemented after distinct surface treatments: fatigue performance and ceramic surface characteristics. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019;94:144–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.03.005This study compared CAD/CAM’s different classes of materials possessing various levels of machinability compared to pressed manufacturing.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Ural C, Burgaz Y, Saraç D. In vitro evaluation of marginal adaptation in five ceramic restoration fabricating techniques. Quintessence Int. 2010;41:585–90. PMID: 20614046Google Scholar
- 16.•• Kusuma Yulianto HD, Rinastiti M, Cune MS, de Haan-Visser W, Atema-Smit J, Busscher HJ, et al. Biofilm composition and composite degradation during intra-oral wear. Dent Mater. 2019;35(5):740–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.02.024This study examined the effect of cariogenic bacteria on the tooth-restoration interface.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.• Maske TT, Hollanders ACC, Kuper NK, Bronkhorst EM, Cenci MS, Huysmans MCDNJM. A threshold gap size for in situ secondary caries lesion development. J Dent. 2019;80:36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.10.014This in-vitro study demonstrated the marginal gap is minimal for secondary caries development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Shim JS, Lee JS, Lee JY, Choi YJ, Shin SW, Ryu JJ. Effect of software version and parameter settings on the marginal and internal adaptation of crowns fabricated with the CAD/CAM system. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23:515–22. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150081.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 34.•• Yu H, Chen YH, Cheng H, Sawase T. Finish-line designs for ceramic crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(1):22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.002This review examined the effect of diamond shape during tooth preparation on marginal gap development.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Lehmensiek M, Askar H, Brouwer F, Blunck U, Paris S, Schwendicke F. Restoration integrity, but not material or cementation strategy determined secondary caries lesions next to indirect restorations in vitro. Dent Mater. 2018;34(12):e317–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.• Renne W, Wolf B, Kessler R, McPherson K, Mennito AS. Evaluation of the marginal fit of CAD/CAM crowns fabricated using two different chairside CAD/CAM systems on preparations of varying quality. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27(4):194–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12148This study demonstrated the importance of preparation over scanning and milling systems utilized.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Con- temporary fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 325–7.Google Scholar
- 41.Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Ja-Cobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1997. p. 437.Google Scholar
- 43.Euán R, Figueras-Álvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Brufau-de Barberà M, Gomes-Azevedo S. Comparison of the marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide crowns in preparations with two different finish lines. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(4):291–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00831.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.•• Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26(3):101–21. https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01752Abduo21This review examined important elements when considering intra-oral scanning over conventional impression techniques.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.• Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3This study demonstrated the potential issues scanners have compared to conventional impressions.
- 51.Geminiani A, Abdel-Azim T, Ercoli C, Feng C, Meirelles L, Massironi D. Influence of oscillating and rotary cutting instruments with electric and turbine handpieces on tooth preparation surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(1):51–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.02.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 54.• Ellis R, Bennani V, Purton D, Chandler N, Lowe B. The effect of ultrasonic instruments on the quality of preparation margins and bonding to dentin. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012;24(4):278–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00495.xThis study demonstrated sonic handpieces have a positive effect on finish line margins and bonding.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 58.Setzer FC, Kohli M, Shah S, Karabucak B, Kim S. Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature - part 2: comparison of endodontic microsurgical techniques with and without the use of higher magnification. J Endod\. 2012;38:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar