DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study on the difference analysis between an ideal and a clinical shape in case of manufacturing a metal-ceramic pontic substructure

금속-도재 가공치 하부구조 제작에서 이상적인 형태와 임상에서 사용되는 형태의 차이 분석

  • Received : 2015.08.04
  • Accepted : 2016.02.29
  • Published : 2016.03.31

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this research is to determine whether pontic metal substructures, which are currently used in clinical surgeries, are designed appropriately and identify the problems that can occur due to their shape, size, and position. Then it aimed to emphasize the importance of making and designing pontic metal substructures based on basic principles. Materials and Methods: This research measured pontic basal surface (P1) used sample metal substructures in this study, gingiva margin (P2), and the porcelain thickness of maximum infrabulge of labial surface around 1/3 of cervix dentis (P3). One-way ANOVA analysis was carried out to test the differences among groups, Tukey Honestly Significant Difference Test was conducted for statistical analysis among groups. Results: For porcelain thickness and SD value, the P1 part was $1.2-1.8({\pm}0.17)mm$ for experimental group 1, $1.2-1.7({\pm}0.17)mm$ for experimental group 2, and $0.4-2.8({\pm}0.92)mm$ for experimental group 3. Next, the P2 part was $1.4-1.6({\pm}0.07)mm$ for experimental group 1, $1.3-1.8({\pm}0.07)mm$ for experimental group 2, and $0.5-2.7({\pm}0.67)mm$ for experimental group 3. The P3 part was $1.4-1.7({\pm}0.10)mm$ for experimental group 1, $1.5-2({\pm}0.10)mm$ for experimental group 2, and $0.9-3.1mm({\pm}0.90)$ for experimental group 3. There was no significance when One-way ANOVA analysis/Tukey Honestly Significant Difference Test was conducted for statistical analysis among groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The suggested metal substructures can be used clinically as they meet the requirements that pontic must have.

Keywords

pontic;metal substructures;gingiva margin;height of contour;porcelain

References

  1. Hobo S, Shillingburg HT Jr. Porcelain fused to metal: tooth preparation and coping design. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30:28-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(73)90075-9
  2. Miler LL. Framework design in ceramo-metal restorations. Dent Clin North Am 1977;21:699-716.
  3. Shelby DS. Practical considerations and design of porcelain fused to metal. J Prosthet Dent 1962;12: 542-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(62)90137-3
  4. Kim JB, Kim KS, Kim YH, Jeong SH, Jin BH, Chio EM, Hwang YS. Public oral health. 3rd ed. Seoul; KMS; 2004. p. 223-76.
  5. Silver M, Haward MC, Klein G. Porcelain bonded to a cast metal understructure. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11:132-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(61)90120-2
  6. Straussberg G, Katz G, Kuwata M. Design of gold supporting structures for fused porcelain restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:928-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(66)90015-1
  7. Faucher RR, Nicholls JI. Distortion related to margin design in porcelain fused to metal restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:149-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(80)90178-X
  8. Tylman SD. Theory and practice of crown and bridge prosthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis; C V Mosby; 1965. p. 23-24.
  9. Kim WT. Applying the new technology for making pontic ridge lap in posterior bridge restoration. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2013;29:308-16. https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2013.29.3.308
  10. Yang JH. Technical consideration for ceramo-metal restorations. J Korean Dent Assoc 1981;9:339-42.
  11. Brecker SC. Porcelain baked to gold. A new medium in Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1956;6:801-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(56)90077-4
  12. McLean JW. The science and art of dental ceramics. Chicago; Quintescence; 1979. p. 149-56.
  13. Warpeha WS Jr, Goodkind RJ. Design and technique variables affecting fracture resistance of metalceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1976;35:291-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(76)90253-5
  14. Sillness J. Fixed prosthodontics and periodontal health. Dent Clin North Am 1980;24:317-29.