The Impact of Open versus Closed Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Systems on the Marginal Gap of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Single Crowns Evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscopy: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Asaf Shely, Joseph Nissan, Ofir Rosner, Eran Zenziper, Diva Lugassy, Khadija Abidulkrem, Gil Ben-Izhack*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the impact of CAD/CAM closed systems and open systems on the marginal gap of monolithic zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) ceramic crowns, as both systems are used in everyday dentistry, both chair-side and laboratory. For the closed system, 20 plastic teeth were scanned by a Primescan intra-oral scanner (IOS), and for the open system, the same number of plastic teeth were scanned by Trios 4 IOS. For the closed system, CEREC software was used, and for the open system, EXOCAD software was used. All 40 ZLS crowns were grinded by the same four-axis machine and cemented with Temp-bond, followed by self-adhesive resin cement. For each type of cement, an evaluation of the marginal gap was conducted by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Before comparisons between the groups, a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed on the study variables showing a normal distribution (p > 0.05). Independent T tests (α = 0.05) and paired-sample T tests (α = 0.05) were used. The independent T test found no significant mean marginal gap differences in the zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns bonded with Temp-bond and scanned by Primescan (28.09 μm ± 3.06) compared to Trios 4 (28.94 μm ± 3.30) (p = 0.401), and there was no significant mean marginal gap differences in zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns bonded with self-adhesive resin cement (Gcem ONE) and scanned by Primescan (46.70 μm ± 3.80) compared to Trios 4 (47.79 μm ± 2.59) (p = 0.295). Paired-sample T tests showed significantly higher mean marginal gaps with Gcem ONE compared to Temp-bond for the total mean marginal gap when scanning with Primescan (p = 0.0005) or Trios 4 (p = 0.0005). In everyday dentistry, both closed systems (Primescan with Cerec) and open systems (Trios 4 with Exocad) can be used to achieve an acceptable (<120 µm) marginal gap for ZLS CELTRA® DUO single crowns. There is a significant difference between cementation with Temp-bond and Gcem ONE self-adhesive resin cement (p < 0.05).

Original languageEnglish
Article number130
JournalJournal of Functional Biomaterials
Volume15
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2024

Keywords

  • CAD-CAM
  • closed system
  • marginal discrepancy
  • marginal fit
  • marginal gap
  • open system
  • Primescan
  • SEM
  • Trios 4
  • ZLS

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Impact of Open versus Closed Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Systems on the Marginal Gap of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Single Crowns Evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscopy: A Comparative In Vitro Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this