구강회복응용과학지 (Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science)

  • 제29권4호
  • /
  • Pages.366-376
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 2384-4353(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-4272(eISSN)
대한턱관절교합학회 (Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

서로 다른 스캔 방식을 이용하여 CAD/CAM에 의해 제작된 코핑의 변연 및 내면의 적합성

Marginal and Internal Fit of Copings Made by CAD/CAM using Different Scanning Methods

  • 조영범 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 보철학교실) ;
  • 정재헌 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 보철학교실) ;
  • 김희중 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 보철학교실)
  • Cho, Young Beom (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Denistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Chae, Heon Chung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Denistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Hee Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Denistry, Chosun University)
  • 투고 : 2013.08.10
  • 심사 : 2013.11.03
  • 발행 : 2013.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

구강내 스캔(Group 1), 모델 광학 스캔(Group 2)과 모델 접촉식 스캔(Group 3)방식으로 각각 zirconia 코핑을 제작하여 광학 현미경으로 적합성을 관찰하였다. 측정항목은 변연오차(absolute marginal discrepancy;AMD), 변연간극(marginal gap; MG), 측방간격(gap of axial wall; GA), 선각간격(gap of line angle; GL)와 교합간격(gap of occusal surface; GO)이었으며, 결과는 아래와 같았다. 1. Group 1, Group 2, Group 3의 평균 AMD는 각 각 $141.21{\pm}42.94{\mu}m$, $140.63{\pm}31.64{\mu}m$, $109.37{\pm}28.42{\mu}m$이고, Group1, Group 2, Group 3의 MG는 각 각 $82.52{\pm}43.99{\mu}m$, $90.28{\pm}27.93{\mu}m$, $66.55{\pm}28.77{\mu}m$였다. AMD와 MG는 각 그룹에서 통계학적으로 유의한 차이를 보여주지 않았다(Anova test, P>0.05). 2. Group 2의 GA가 Group 1과 Group 3에 비해 통계학적으로 유의하게 적은 수치를 나타내었다(Anova test, P<0.05). 3. Group 1의 GL과 GO가 다른 그룹에 비해 통계학적으로 높은 수치를 나타내었다(Mann-whitney test(P<0.05). 세 가지 스캔 방식으로 제작된 zirconia 코핑은 세라믹 보철의 가장 중요한 평가 요소인 AMD와 MG에서 서로 통계학적 차이를 보이지 않았다.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of coping made by CAD/CAM using different scanning methods. Zirconia coping was made by each CAD/CAM system followed by intra-oral scanning, model optical scanning and model contact scanning. It was embedded into Epoxy Resin and was cut by buccal to lingual. AMD (Absolute marginal discrepancy), MG (Marginal gap), GA (Gap of axial), GL (Gap of line angle) and GO (Gap of occlusal) of each sample were measured. The result is as followed; 1. The mean value of AMD in Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 are $141.21{\pm}42.94{\mu}m$, $140.63{\pm}31.64{\mu}m$, $109.37{\pm}28.42{\mu}m$. The averages of MG in Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 are $82.52{\pm}43.99{\mu}m$, $90.28{\pm}27.93{\mu}m$, $66.55{\pm}28.77{\mu}m$. Statistically there is no difference in AMD and MG among the three Groups (Anova, P>0.05). 2. GA of Group 2 revealed statistically difference compared with Group 1 and Group 3 (Anova, P<0.05). 3. GL and GO of Group 1 showed statistically significant differences compared with Group 2 and Group 3 (Mann-whitney test (P<0.05). Zirconia copings made by 3 ways of scanning methods have no difference with conventional ceramics in AMD and MG which are known as the most important factors.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Reich SM, Wichmann M, Rinne H, Shortall A. Clinical performance of large, all-ceramic CAD/CAM-generated restorations after three years: a pilot study. J Am Dent Assoc 2004 ;135:605-612. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0248
  2. Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Chair side computer-aided direct ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 1989; 20: 329-339.
  3. Duret F, Preston JD. CAD/CAM imaging in dentistry. Curr Opin Dent 1991;1:150-154.
  4. Rekow ED. Dental CAD/CAM systems: what is the state of the art? J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122:43-48.
  5. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, et al. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.44
  6. Duret F, Preston JD. CAD/CAM imaging in dentistry. Curr Opin Dent 1991;1:150-154.
  7. Goodacre CJ, Garbacea A, Naylor WP, Daher T, Marchack CB, Lowry J. CAD/CAM fabricated complete dentures: concepts and clinical methods of obtaining required morphological data. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:34-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60015-8
  8. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;10;204:505-511. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350
  9. Besimo CE, Spielmann HP, Rohner HP. Computerassisted generation of all-ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures. Int J Comput Dent 2001;4:43-62.
  10. Suttor D, Bunke K, Hoescheler S, Hauptmann H, Hertlein G. LAVA-the system for all-ceramic ZrO2 crowns and bridge frameworks. Int J Comput Dent 2001;4:195-206.
  11. Jacobs MS, Windeler AS. An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:436-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90239-S
  12. Knoernschild KL, Campbell SD. Periodontal tissue responses after insertion of artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:492-498. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.110262
  13. Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Luthy H, Hammerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:383-388.
  14. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:297-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(66)90082-5
  15. Mitchell CA, Pintado MR, Douglas WH. Nondestructive, in vitro quantification of crown margins. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:575-584. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.114268
  16. May KB, Russell MM, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. Precision of fit: the Procera AllCeram crown. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:394-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70002-2
  17. Beuer F, Naumann M, Gernet W, Sorensen JA. Precision of fit: zirconia three-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13:343-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0224-6
  18. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-111. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708
  19. Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Vult von Steyern P, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:526-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01458.x
  20. Reich S, Kappe K, Teschner H, Schmitt J. Clinical fit of four-unit zirconia posterior fixed dental prostheses. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:579-584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00580.x
  21. Borba M, Cesar PF, Griggs JA, Della Bona A. Adaptation of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater. 2011;27:1119- 1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.08.004
  22. Martinez-Rus F, Suarez MJ, Rivera B, Pradies G. Evaluation of the absolute marginal discrepancy of zirconia-based ceramic copings. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:108-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60009-7
  23. Quintas AF, Oliveira F, Bottino MA. Vertical marginal discrepancy of ceramic copings with different ceramic materials, finish lines, and luting agents: an in vitro evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92:250-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.06.023
  24. Shearer B, Gough MB, Setchell DJ. Influence of marginal configuration and porcelain addition on the fit of In-Ceram crowns. Biomaterials 1996;17:1891-1895. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(95)00302-9
  25. Probster L, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Kirchner E, Kanjantra P. In vitro evaluation of a glassceramic restorative material. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:636-645. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00560.x
  26. Reich S, Wichmann M, Nkenke E, Proeschel P. Clinical fit of all-ceramic three-unit fixed partial dentures, generated with three different CAD/CAM systems. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:174-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00197.x
  27. Rekow D, Thompson VP. Near-surface damage-a persistent problem in crowns obtained by computeraided design and manufacturing. Proc Inst Mech Eng 2005;219:233-243. https://doi.org/10.1243/095441105X9363
  28. Rekow ED, Harsono M, Janal M, Thompson VP, Zhang G. Factorial analysis of variables influencing stress in all-ceramic crowns. Dent Mater 2006;22:125-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.010
  29. Tuntiprawon M, Wilson PR. The effect of cement thickness on the fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Aust Dent J 1995;40:17-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1995.tb05607.x
  30. Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kastner K, Walter MH. Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:419-424. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.109125
  31. Moldovan O, Luthardt RG, Corcodel N, Rudolph H. Three-dimensional fit of CAD/CAM-made zirconia copings. Dent Mater 2011;27:1273-1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.006
  32. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015

피인용 문헌

  1. Assessment of the fit of zirconia-based prostheses fabricated with two different scan methods vol.55, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2017.55.2.135