Title |
Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1590/1678-775720150451 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Adil Othman Abdullah, Effrosyni A Tsitrou, Sarah Pollington |
Abstract |
This study compared the marginal gap, internal fit, fracture strength, and mode of fracture of CAD/CAM provisional crowns with that of direct provisional crowns. An upper right first premolar phantom tooth was prepared for full ceramic crown following tooth preparation guidelines. The materials tested were: VITA CAD-Temp®, Polyetheretherketone "PEEK", Telio CAD-Temp, and Protemp™4 (control group). The crowns were divided into four groups (n=10), Group1: VITA CAD-Temp®, Group 2: PEEK, Group 3: Telio CAD-Temp, and Group 4: Protemp™4. Each crown was investigated for marginal and internal fit, fracture strength, and mode of fracture. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism software version 6.0. The average marginal gap was: VITA CAD-Temp® 60.61 (±9.99) µm, PEEK 46.75 (±8.26) µm, Telio CAD-Temp 56.10 (±5.65) µm, and Protemp™4 193.07(±35.96) µm (P<0.001). The average internal fit was: VITA CAD-Temp® 124.94 (±22.96) µm, PEEK 113.14 (±23.55) µm, Telio CAD-Temp 110.95 (±11.64) µm, and Protemp™4 143.48(±26.74) µm. The average fracture strength was: VITA CAD-Temp® 361.01 (±21.61) N, PEEK 802.23 (±111.29) N, Telio CAD-Temp 719.24 (±95.17) N, and Protemp™4 416.40 (±69.14) N. One-way ANOVA test showed a statistically significant difference for marginal gap, internal gap, and fracture strength between all groups (p<0.001). However, the mode of fracture showed no differences between the groups (p>0.05). CAD/CAM fabricated provisional crowns demonstrated superior fit and better strength than direct provisional crowns. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 213 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 33 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 19 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 8% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 5% |
Other | 30 | 14% |
Unknown | 93 | 44% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 102 | 48% |
Materials Science | 6 | 3% |
Unspecified | 2 | <1% |
Arts and Humanities | 2 | <1% |
Energy | 2 | <1% |
Other | 4 | 2% |
Unknown | 95 | 45% |