Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 93, Issue 2 , Pages 143-147, February 2005

Marginal fit of leucite-glass pressable ceramic restorations and ceramic-pressed-to-metal restorations

  • Edward B. Goldin, DDS

      Affiliations

    • Resident, Advanced Education Program in Prosthodontics
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Dr Edward Goldin, 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1656, New York, NY 10165, Fax: 212-986-4927
  • ,
  • Norman W. Boyd III, DDS

      Affiliations

    • Resident, Advanced Education Program in Prosthodontics
  • ,
  • Gary R. Goldstein, DDS

      Affiliations

    • Professor, Department of Prosthodontics
  • ,
  • Eugene L. Hittelman, MA, EdD

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion
  • ,
  • Van P. Thompson, DDS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Professor, Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics

New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY

Statement of problem

Fabricating a feldspathic porcelain margin on a metal-ceramic restoration with a clinically acceptable marginal fit has proven to be a technique-sensitive procedure. Pressable ceramics are advocated to solve this problem.

Purpose

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal adaptation of a pressable ceramic system when used with both all-ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns, with a traditional metal-ceramic restoration.

Material and methods

A 1.5-mm, 360-degree chamfer margin was prepared on a typodont maxillary central incisor. Polyether impressions were made and poured in a Type IV dental stone, and the following crowns were fabricated on individual dies: 15 metal ceramic restorations (MCR) (Ceramco II, Ceramco, and Argelite 60), 15 pressed-to-metal restorations (PTM) (CPC-MK, and Argelite 60), and 15 pressed ceramic restorations (PCR) (CPC-MK). The marginal fit of the crowns was evaluated every 90 degrees around the crown margin circumference under a microscope at original magnification × 45. A 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare data (α=.05).

Results

The mean marginal discrepancy for MCRs was 94 ± 41 μm, for PTMs, 88 ± 29 μm, and for PCRs, 81 ± 25 μm. The 1-way ANOVA showed no significant difference between groups (P=.568).

Conclusion

The marginal fit of pressed-to-metal (PTMs) and pressed all-ceramic crowns (PCRs) was similar to that of traditional metal-ceramic crowns (MCRs).

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Presented before the International Association of Dental Research, Goteborg, Sweden, June 2003. Presented at the American College of Prosthodontics annual meeting, Dallas, Texas, October 2003; third prize in table clinic presentations.

PII: S0022-3913(04)00698-5

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.10.023

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 93, Issue 2 , Pages 143-147, February 2005