Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-05-2016 | Original Article

Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics

Authors: Maximilian Kollmuss, Stefan Kist, Julia Eliette Goeke, Reinhard Hickel, Karin Christine Huth

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 4/2016

Abstract

Objectives

There are many ways to produce all-ceramic crowns. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) procedures compete against conventional fabricated restorations. As different methods of production may produce variable results, this study aims to compare chairside and laboratory-based CAD/CAM systems to conventional crowns regarding their similarity to original tooth morphology, number of occlusal contacts, occlusal adjustment time, and subjective aesthetic perception.

Material and methods

Impressions of caries-free jaws were taken, and the resulting gypsum casts were scanned with a laboratory scanner. Preparations for all-ceramic full crowns were performed on first molars, and three different restorations were made: CEREC restorations (CER), laboratory-produced CAD/CAM crowns (LABCAD), and conventional waxed-up/pressed ceramic crowns (CONV). Time for occlusal adaptation and the number of occlusal contacts were noted. Two dentists performed aesthetic gradings of restorations. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA with least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test, t test, and Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

Metrical deviations of the re-scanned crowns to the original, unprepared tooth surface were 220.55 ± 54.31 μm for CER, 265.94 ± 61.39 for LABCAD, and 252.44 ± 68.77 μm for CONV group. One-way ANOVA showed significant lower deviations for the CER group. LABCAD crowns showed significantly more occlusal contacts, whereas CONV crowns required the least time for occlusal adaptation and showed excellent aesthetic gradings.

Conclusion

All three methods had pros and cons regarding different parameters. Further improvements of CAD/CAM software shall lead to restorations comparable to conventional restorations in all aspects, especially in aesthetics.

Clinical relevance

All tested methods of production for all-ceramic crowns produced clinically acceptable results. Thus, in an individual case, the method chosen can be determined by the dentist’s preference.

Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y (2009) A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 28:44–56CrossRefPubMed

Santos GC Jr, Santos MJ Jr, Rizkalla AS, Madani DA, El-Mowafy O (2013) Overview of CEREC CAD/CAM chairside system. Gen Dent 61:36–40PubMed

Andreiotelli M, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G (2013) Digital data management for CAD/CAM technology. An update of current systems. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 21:9–15PubMed

van Noort R (2012) The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 28:3–12CrossRefPubMed

Fasbinder DJ (2013) Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent 26:115–120PubMed

Litzenburger AP, Hickel R, Richter MJ, Mehl AC, Probst FA (2013) Fully automatic CAD design of the occlusal morphology of partial crowns compared to dental technicians’ design. Clin Oral Invest 17:491–496CrossRef

Kollmuss M, Jakob FM, Kirchner HG, Ilie N, Hickel R, Huth KC (2013) Comparison of biogenerically reconstructed and waxed-up complete occlusal surfaces with respect to the original tooth morphology. Clin Oral Invest 17:851–857CrossRef

Mehl A, Blanz V, Hickel R (2005) Biogeneric tooth: a new mathematical representation for tooth morphology in lower first molars. Eur J Oral Sci 113:333–340CrossRefPubMed

Ender A, Mörmann WH, Mehl A (2011) Efficiency of a mathematical model in generating CAD/CAM-partial crowns with natural tooth morphology. Clin Oral Invest 15:283–289CrossRef

10.

Reich S, Brungsberg B, Teschner H, Frankenberger R (2010) The occlusal precision of laboratory versus CAD/CAM processed all-ceramic crowns. Am J Dent 23:53–56PubMed

11.

Reiss B (2012) Cerec 4.0: articulation and more. Int J Comput Dent 15:137–148PubMed

12.

Ahlers MO, Mörig G, Blunck U, Hajtó J, Pröbster L, Frankenberger R (2009) Guidelines for the preparation of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays and partial crowns. Int J Comput Dent 12:309–325PubMed

13.

Begazo CC, van der Zel JM, van Waas MA, Feilzer AJ (2004) Effectiveness of preparation guidelines for an all-ceramic restorative system. Am J Dent 17:437–424PubMed

14.

Mehl A, Blanz V, Hickel R (2005) A new mathematical process for the calculation of average forms of teeth. J Prosthet Dent 94:561–566CrossRefPubMed

15.

Richter J, Mehl A (2006) Evaluation for the fully automatic inlay reconstruction by means of the biogeneric tooth model. Int J Comput Dent 9:101–111PubMed

16.

Mehl A, Gloger W, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (1997) A new optical 3-D device for the detection of wear. J Dent Res 76:1799–1807CrossRefPubMed

17.

Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 8476:307–310CrossRef

18.

Ellerbrock C, Kordass B (2011) Comparison of computer generated occlusal surfaces with functionally waxed-on surfaces. Int J Comput Dent 14:23–31PubMed

19.

Hartung F, Kordass B (2006) Comparison of the contact surface pattern between virtual and milled Cerec 3D full-ceramic crowns. Int J Comput Dent 9:129–136PubMed

20.

Reich S, Trentzsch L, Gozdowski S, Krey KF (2009) In vitro analysis of laboratory-processed and CAD/CAM-generated occlusal onlay surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 22:620–622PubMed

21.

Nemli SK, Wolfart S, Reich S (2012) InLab and cerec connect: virtual contacts in maximum intercuspation compared with original contacts—an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 15:23–31PubMed

22.

Gozdowski S, Reich S (2009) A comparison of the fabrication times of all-ceramic partial crowns: cerec 3D vs IPS empress. Int J Comput Dent 12:279–289PubMed

23.

Bosch G, Ender A, Mehl A (2014) A 3-dimensional accuracy analysis of chairside CAD/CAM milling processes. J Prosthet Dent. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.012 PubMed

Title: Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics
Authors: Maximilian Kollmuss
Stefan Kist
Julia Eliette Goeke
Reinhard Hickel
Karin Christine Huth
Publication date: 01-05-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1554-9

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Mouse anti-RANKL antibody delays oral wound healing and increases TRAP-positive mononuclear cells in bone marrow

Did we learn something new on pemphigoid autoimmune blistering diseases?

Reply to the Letter to the Editor regarding “Did we learn something new on pemphigoid autoimmune blistering diseases?” by Nili Tickotsky, CLOI-D-15-00596

Short-term effects of systematic premolar extraction on lip profile, vertical dimension and cephalometric parameters in borderline patients for extraction therapy—a retrospective cohort study

Effectivity of air-abrasive powder based on glycine and tricalcium phosphate in removal of initial biofilm on titanium and zirconium oxide surfaces in an ex vivo model

Does periodontal treatment have an effect on clinical and immunological parameters of periodontal disease in obese subjects? A systematic review and meta-analysis