The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of the Crown Preparation Margin and Die Type on the Marginal Accuracy of Fiber-reinforced Composite Crowns

Mohamed F. Ayad

Citation Information : Ayad MF. Effect of the Crown Preparation Margin and Die Type on the Marginal Accuracy of Fiber-reinforced Composite Crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (2):9-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-2-9

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-02-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The objective of this laboratory investigation was to determine the effect of different preparation designs (light chamfer, deep chamfer, and shoulder) and die-making materials (stone and epoxy) on the resulting margin misfit for fiber-reinforced composite crowns using a measuring microscope.

Methods and Materials

Sixty standardized FibreKor crowns were made on stone and epoxy resin dies (n=30 each) duplicated from three metal master dies representing complete crown tooth preparation with a total convergence of 5°. For each die group, three of the tooth preparation designs were established in relation to the type of finish line (n=0 each) as follows: Group A (0.5-mm light chamfer finish line); Group B (1.0-mm deep chamfer finish line); and Group C (1.0-mm shoulder finish line). Marginal accuracy was evaluated by measuring the distances between each of four pairs of indentations on the crowns and on the dies with a Nikon measuring microscope.

Results

Analysis of seating measurements with parametric analysis of variance and Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) disclosed a statistically significant difference for both tooth preparation design and die material (p< 0.001). However, the interaction effect was not significant (p=0.9073). The least marginal opening value was for FibreKor crowns made on epoxy resin dies with a light chamfer finish line (57 μm), but the difference was not statistically significantly different from crowns made on epoxy resin dies with a deep chamfer light chamfer finish line (61 μm). However, crowns made on epoxy resin dies with a shoulder finish line (81 μm) had significantly higher values (p< 0.05). FibreKor crowns made on stone dies with the shoulder finish line (95 μm) had statistically higher marginal opening values (p< 0.05). The least marginal opening value was for crowns made on stone dies with a light chamfer finish line (66 μm), but the difference was not statistically significantly different from crowns made on stone dies with a deep chamfer light chamfer finish line (70 μm).

Conclusions

Significant differences were found among the die material used for the shoulder margin design. However, there was no significant difference between light chamfer and deep chamfer margin designs for both die materials.

Citation

Ayad MF. Effect of the Crown Preparation Margin and Die Type on the Marginal Accuracy of Fiberreinforced Composite Crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 February;(9)2:009-016.


PDF Share
  1. Influence of marginal configuration and porcelain addition on the fit on In-Ceram crowns. Biomaterial 1996; 17:1891-5.
  2. Fiber-reinforced composites in clinical dentistry. 1st ed. Chicago; Quintessence Publishing; 2000. p. 1-6.
  3. A new system for posterior restorations: a combination of ceramic optimized polymer and fiber-reinforced composite. Practic Periodon Aesthet Dent 1997; 9:6-10.
  4. Development and clinical applications of a light polymerized fiber-reinforced composite. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80:311-17.
  5. Marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceromer/fiber-reinforced composite crowns: effect of variations in preparation design. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Oct;88(4):388-95.
  6. Effect of finish line variants on marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceramic optimized polymer/fiber-reinforced composite crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Jun;91(6):554-60.
  7. A clinical evaluation of fixed bridges, 10 years following insertion. J Oral Rehabil 1986; 13:423-32.
  8. Marginal leakage of cast gold crowns luted with an adhesive resin cement. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67:11-15.
  9. An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65:436-42.
  10. Fiber-reinforced composite fixed prostheses. In Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J, eds. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis: Elsevier/Mosby; 2006. p. 830-42.
  11. The estimation of cement film thickness by an vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971; 131:107-11.
  12. Evaluation of the marginal accuracy of different all-ceramic crown systems after simulation in the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26:582-93.
  13. Determination of the minimum number of marginal gap measurements required for practical in vitro testing. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83:40-9.
  14. A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1997 Sep-Oct;10(5):478-84.
  15. In vitro comparison of conventional crowns and a new all-ceramic system. J Dent 1993; 21:47-51.
  16. Influence of surface hardness on gypsum abrasion resistance and water sorption. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90:441-6.
  17. Microwave drying of high strength dental stone: effects on dimension accuracy. Oper Dent 2003; 28:193-9.
  18. Fracture strength of type IV and type V die stone as a function of time. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78:554-9.
  19. Influence of film thickness on joint bend strength of a ceramic/resin composite joint. Dent Mater. 1996 Jul;12(4):245-9.
  20. Fracture resistance of posterior metal free polymer crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84:303-8.
  21. The effect of glass fiber reinforcement on the fracture resistance of a provisional fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79:125-30.
  22. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced fixed bridges. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002 Nov;133(11):1524-34.
  23. Fracture resistance and marginal adaptation of conventionally cemented fiber-reinforced composite three-unit FPDs. International J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 467-72.
  24. In vitro study of fracture strength and marginal adaptation of polyethylene-fiber-reinforced-composite versus glass-fiber-reinforced-composite fixed partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29:668-74.
  25. Comparison of three types of fiber-reinforced composite molar crowns on their fracture resistance and marginal adaptation. J Dent 2001; 29:187-96.
  26. The effect of tooth preparation form on the fit of Procera copings. Int J Prosthodont. 1998 Nov-Dec;11(6):580-90.
  27. In vitro marginal adaptation of alumina porcelain ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72:585-90.
  28. The effect of various finish line preparations on the marginal seal and occlusal seat of full crown preparations. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 45:138-45.
  29. Influence of finish-line geometry on the fit of crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6:25-30.
  30. Influence of finish-line form on crown cementation. Int J Prosthodont. 1992 Mar-Apr;5(2):137-44.
  31. Marginal fit of restorations before and after cementation in vivo. Int J Prosthodont. 1993 Nov-Dec;6(6):585-91.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.