We have located links that may give you full text access.
Analysis of vertical marginal discrepancy in feldspathic porcelain crowns manufactured with different CAD/CAM systems: Closed and open.
European Journal of Dentistry 2018 January
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the marginal adaptation of feldspathic porcelain crowns using two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing systems, one of them is open and the other is closed.
Materials and Methods: Twenty identical titanium abutments were divided into two groups: open system (OS), where ceramic crowns were created using varied equipment and software, and closed system (CS), where ceramic crowns were created using the CEREC system. Through optical microscopy analysis, we assess the marginal adaptation of the prosthetic interfaces. The data were subjected to the distribution of normality and variance. The t -test was used for the analysis of the comparison factor between the groups, and the one-way ANOVA was used to compare the variance of crown analysis regions within the group. A significance level of 5% was considered for the analyses.
Results: There was a significant difference between the systems ( P = 0.007), with the CS group having the higher mean (23.75 μm ± 3.05) of marginal discrepancy when compared to the open group (17.94 μm ± 4.77). Furthermore, there were no differences in marginal discrepancy between the different points between the groups ( P ≥ 0.05).
Conclusions: The studied groups presented results within the requirements set out in the literature. However, the OS used presented better results in marginal adaptation.
Materials and Methods: Twenty identical titanium abutments were divided into two groups: open system (OS), where ceramic crowns were created using varied equipment and software, and closed system (CS), where ceramic crowns were created using the CEREC system. Through optical microscopy analysis, we assess the marginal adaptation of the prosthetic interfaces. The data were subjected to the distribution of normality and variance. The t -test was used for the analysis of the comparison factor between the groups, and the one-way ANOVA was used to compare the variance of crown analysis regions within the group. A significance level of 5% was considered for the analyses.
Results: There was a significant difference between the systems ( P = 0.007), with the CS group having the higher mean (23.75 μm ± 3.05) of marginal discrepancy when compared to the open group (17.94 μm ± 4.77). Furthermore, there were no differences in marginal discrepancy between the different points between the groups ( P ≥ 0.05).
Conclusions: The studied groups presented results within the requirements set out in the literature. However, the OS used presented better results in marginal adaptation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app