Comparison of internal Adaptation between high translucent Zirconia crowns and IPS E-max crowns using Replica technique.
Keywords:
Internal Adaptation, Zirconia, Translucency, Replica Technique, Ips E-MaxAbstract
Background and aim of the study: The presence of a defect in the the maxillary anterior teeth greatly affects the cosmetic aspect, which can be treated with several prosthetic options such as full-porcelain crowns and porcelain veneers, where the option of treatment with full-porcelain crowns has been the first option for several years ago But sometimes it is considered a non-conservative method because it requires the removal of large quantities of dental tissues to achieve the required standards for some ceramic materials. Hence the idea of this study came due to the amount of preserved dental tissues when using high-translucency zirconia (Lava Plus).
Materials and methods: The research sample consisted of 60 full ceramic crowns divided into two groups, where the first group consisted of 30 high translucent-zirconia ceramic crowns from 3M (lava plus zirconia) manufactured by computer design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) method, and the second group consisted of 30 full IPS E-max ceramic crowns from Ivoclar Vivadent were CAD/CAM manufactured. The internal adaptation was examined using the cement replica technique in the cementation session after the final crowns check, where the duplicated copy was obtained, cut and measured using an optical microscope equipped with a millimeter graded ruler, in five points then a t-test was performed for independent samples t-test to study the effect of different material Crowns Press) on the internal occlusion of porcelain crowns.
Results: The arithmetic mean of the internal gap for zirconia crowns was 64.1 microns, while the IPS E-max group reached 64 microns, without there being a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The crowns in the two study groups obtained clinically acceptable values.
Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, we conclude that there are no clinically clear differences between the two study groups with regard to internal applicability.