METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 30 undergraduate dental students were shown a CEREC demonstration video. Each operator then captured a digital impression using the intra-oral scanner, and a crown was subsequently milled. All participants underwent a training course before repeating the process. Marginal discrepancy for each crown on its abutment tooth was measured before and after training using a stereomicroscope and was evaluated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. The duration taken for the process was recorded before and after training and evaluated using paired t-test.
RESULTS: The overall mean ±standard deviation marginal adaptation for the CEREC crowns was 78.15 ± 42.83 μm before training and 52.41 ± 17.12 μm after training. The Wilcoxon signed rank test found significant difference (p
ABSTRACT: Replacement of a single anterior tooth in the aesthetic zone while planning for future implant placement is crucial to the restorative treatment plan. Several methods exist for immediate provisionalisation of the extracted tooth while waiting for soft and hard tissue healing. Although there's a myriad of possible provisionalisation methods available, each option has its advantages and disadvantages. The treatment options should weigh various factors such as the available materials, ease of fabrication, costs, and the effect on the future implant site. This article describes three clinical cases demonstrating a simple yet cost-effective technique to temporarily replace an extracted single anterior tooth, enhancing patient satisfaction and increasing compliance before receiving the definitive implant restoration. The pro and cons for each treatment option available as opposed to the technique involved in the three cases used are also described.
METHODS: Thirty-six mandibular premolar teeth with an average surface area of 64.49 mm2 were prepared to receive CAM/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Samples were divided randomly and equally into groups of lithium disilicate with 2 mm intracoronal depth (LD2), lithium disilicate with 4 mm intracoronal depth (LD4), polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 2 mm intracoronal depth (PICN2) and polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 4 mm intracoronal depth (PICN4). All endocrowns were cemented using ParaCore resin cement with 14N pressure and cured for 20 seconds. Fifty measurements of absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were done using a stereomicroscope after cementation. After 24 hours, all samples were subjected to thermocycling before the retention test. This involved using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and applying a load of 500N. The maximum force to detach the crown was recorded in newtons and the mode of failure was identified.
RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA revealed that the AMD for PICN was statistically significantly better than lithium disilicate (p=0.01). No statistically significant difference was detected in the AMD between the two intracoronal depths (p=0.72). PICN and endocrowns with 4 mm intracoronal depth had statistically significant better retention (p<0.05). 72.22% of the sample suffered from cohesive failures and 10 LD endocrowns suffered adhesive failures.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we found that different materials and intracoronal depths can indeed influence the retention of CAD/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Based on the controlled setting findings, PICN was found to have better retention and better marginal adaptation than similar lithium disilicate premolar endocrowns.