Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-08-2019 | Original Article

Tooth substance removal for ceramic single crown materials—an in vitro comparison

Authors: Franz Sebastian Schwindling, Moritz Waldecker, Peter Rammelsberg, Stefan Rues, Wolfgang Bömicke

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 8/2019

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the tooth structure removal required for currently available ceramic crown materials.

Material and methods

Ninety typodont teeth (60 incisors, 30 molars) were assigned to nine study groups. The teeth were digitized, weighed with a high-precision balance, and fixed in carriers in identical alignment. Full-crown restorations were prepared according to material-specific guidelines for monolithic zirconia (MZ), polymer-infiltrated ceramics (PIC), buccally veneered zirconia (BVZ), feldspathic ceramics (FC), fully veneered zirconia (FVZ), and lithium disilicate (LD). Tooth structure removal was assessed by weighing the teeth before and after preparation. Coronal volume loss was analyzed statistically by use of one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD tests with α = 0.05.

Results

Mean tooth structure removal for incisors was 42% (SD 2%) for MZ, 46% (SD 1%) for PIC, 50% (SD 2%) for BVZ, 57% (SD 1%) for FC, 57% (SD 2%) for FVZ, and 59% (SD 2%) for LD. Mean tooth structure removal for molars was 21% (SD 2%) for MZ, 31% (SD 1%) for PIC, and 35% (SD 1%) for LD. Inter-group differences were statistically significant, except for between FC and FVZ.

Conclusions

Preparation of full ceramic crowns for restoration-free teeth is an invasive procedure. Selecting the ceramic material can, however, reduce loss of tooth structure substantially.

Clinical relevance

Monolithic zirconia is the least invasive material for the preparation of incisor and molar ceramic single crowns. Prescribing buccally veneered instead of fully veneered zirconia reduces preparation invasiveness significantly.

Rauch A, Reich S, Schierz O (2017) Chair-side generated posterior monolithic lithium disilicate crowns: clinical survival after 6 years. Clin Oral Investig 21:2083–2089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1998-6 CrossRefPubMed

Seydler B, Schmitter M (2015) Clinical performance of two different CAD/CAM-fabricated ceramic crowns: 2-year results. J Prosthet Dent 114:212–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.016 CrossRefPubMed

Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto Y, Akamine A (2001) Composite resin restoration and postoperative sensitivity: clinical follow-up in an undergraduate program. J Dent 29:7–13CrossRefPubMed

Zoellner A, Herzberg S, Gaengler P (1996) Histobacteriology and pulp reactions to long-term dental restorations. J Marmara Univ Dent Fac 2:483–490PubMed

Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE (2015) All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 31:603–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011 CrossRefPubMed

Camps J, Déjou J, Rémusat M, About I (2000) Factors influencing pulpal response to cavity restorations. Dent Mater 16:432–440CrossRefPubMed

Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA (2002) Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for posterior teeth. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 22:241–249PubMed

Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA (2002) Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 87:503–509CrossRefPubMed

Al-Fouzan AF, Tashkandi EA (2013) Volumetric measurements of removed tooth structure associated with various preparation designs. Int J Prosthodont 26:545–548. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3221 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hussain SK, McDonald A, Moles DR (2007) In vitro study investigating the mass of tooth structure removed following endodontic and restorative procedures. J Prosthet Dent 98:260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60110-3 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A (2017) Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 118:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Awad D, Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Ilie N (2015) Translucency of esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials and composite resins with respect to thickness and surface roughness. J Prosthet Dent 113:534–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.003 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Maunula H, Hjerppe J, Lassila LLV, Narhi TO (2017) Optical properties and failure load of thin CAD/CAM ceramic veneers. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 25:86–92. https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01677Maunula07 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE (2016) Corrigendum to “all-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth- supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs)” [dental materials 31 (6) (2015) 603–623]. Dent Mater 32:e389–e390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.032 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Gehrt M, Wolfart S, Rafai N, Reich S, Edelhoff D (2013) Clinical results of lithium-disilicate crowns after up to 9 years of service. Clin Oral Investig 17:275–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0700-x CrossRefPubMed

16.

Rauch A, Reich S, Dalchau L, Schierz O (2018) Clinical survival of chair-side generated monolithic lithium disilicate crowns:10-year results. Clin Oral Investig 22:1763–1769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2271-3 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ramos Nde C, Campos TM, Paz IS, Machado JP, Bottino MA, Cesar PF, Melo RM (2016) Microstructure characterization and SCG of newly engineered dental ceramics. Dent Mater 32:870–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.018 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Sonmez N, Gultekin P, Turp V, Akgungor G, Sen D, Mijiritsky E (2018) Evaluation of five CAD/CAM materials by microstructural characterization and mechanical tests: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 18:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0458-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Zhang Y, Lawn BR (2018) Novel zirconia materials in dentistry. J Dent Res 97:140–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517737483 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Bömicke W, Rammelsberg P, Stober T, Schmitter M (2017) Short-term prospective clinical evaluation of monolithic and partially veneered zirconia single crowns. J Esthet Restor Dent 29:22–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12270 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Moscovitch M (2015) Consecutive case series of monolithic and minimally veneered zirconia restorations on teeth and implants: up to 68 months. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 35:315–323. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.2270 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hmaidouch R, Neumann P, Mueller WD (2011) Influence of preparation form, luting space setting and cement type on the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM crown copings. Int J Comput Dent 14:219–226PubMed

23.

Kale E, Seker E, Yilmaz B, Özcelik TB (2016) Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent 116:890–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.006 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Neves FD, Prado CJ, Prudente MS, Carneiro TA, Zancopé K, Davi LR, Mendonca G, Cooper LF, Soares CJ (2014) Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. J Prosthet Dent 112:1134–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.028 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, Qian F (2014) 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont 23:610–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12180 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C (2014) A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 112:555–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.002 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B (2013) Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17:1759–1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Tooth substance removal for ceramic single crown materials—an in vitro comparison
Authors: Franz Sebastian Schwindling
Moritz Waldecker
Peter Rammelsberg
Stefan Rues
Wolfgang Bömicke
Publication date: 01-08-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2753-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Tooth substance removal for ceramic single crown materials—an in vitro comparison

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

Self-assessed neurological disturbances after surgical removal of impacted lower third molar: a pragmatic prospective study on 423 surgical extractions in 247 consecutive patients

Should we fear direct oral anticoagulants more than vitamin K antagonists in simple single tooth extraction? A prospective comparative study

Overdentures borne on less than four abutments with telescopic crowns: 5-year results of a retrospective clinical study

Swallowing changes related to chronic temporomandibular disorders

Influence of polycystic ovary syndrome on the periodontal health of Indian women visiting a secondary health care centre

Microbiological profile associated with peri-implant diseases in individuals with and without preventive maintenance therapy: a 5-year follow-up