MERAL ARSLAN MALKOÇ, Atiye Nilgün ÖZTÜRK, Şerife Tuba BÜYÜKÖZER, Bora ÖZTÜRK

İki farklı porselen laminate veneer restorasyonun kenar uyumunun in-vitro olarak değerlendirilmesi+

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı laminate veneerlerin kenar uyumu üzerine farklı porselen sistemleri ve preparasyon tekniklerinin etkilerinin araştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve yöntem: Bu çalışma için 192 adet üst birinci kesici diş kullanıldı. Dişlerin vestibül yü- zeylerinden aynı klinisyen tarafından 0.5 mm kalınlığa sahip laminate rehber frezi (Komet) kullanılarak eşit miktarda madde kaldırıldı. Preparasyon kavitelerinin yarısı (n= 96) bevel diğer yarısı (n=96) overlap biçiminde hazırlandı. IPS Empress II (IPS Empress Esthetic Veneer) ve CEREC 3 (Vita blok Mark II) sistemleri kullanıldı. Restorasyon marjinleri boyunca diş yüzeyindeki aralıklar stereomikroskop kullanılarak analiz edildi. Her yüzeydeki aralık için 5 nokta ölçümü yapıldı. Yapılan ölçümlerin ortalaması alındı ve ortalama marjinal aralık belirlendi. Veriler istatistiksel olarak çift yönlü varyans analizi ve Tukey HSD testi kullanılarak analiz edildi. Bulgular: Kenar uyumu açısından seramik grupları arasında istatistiksel olarak herhangi bir fark olmamasına karşın (p=0.237), preparasyon grupları arasındaki fark anlamlı düzeydeydi (p=0.000). Bevel preparasyon tipi overlap tasarımından daha iyi marjınal adaptasyon göstermiştir (IPS Empress II-Bevel 39.84±7,24 μm, IPS Empress II-Overlap 75,82±14,41 μm, Cerec 3-Bevel 40,91±6,24 μm , Cerec 3-Overlap 70,68±16,27 μm). Sonuç: Klinik olarak, bevel preparasyon tipi porselen laminate endikasyonlarında tavsiye edilebilir.

In-vitro evaluation of marginal adaptation of two different porcelain laminate veneers

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine porcelain systems or preparation technique has an effect on marginal adaptation of laminate veneers. Methods: In this study, 192 maxillary first incisors were used. The facial surfaces of teeth were prepared to accommodate veneers of equal thickness by using 0,5 mm laminate guide bur. Teeth were prepared by same clinician. Cavities were prepared half as bevel (n=96) and overlapped (n=96). IPS Empress II (IPS Empress Esthetic Veneer ) and CEREC 3 (Vita blok Mark II) porcelain laminate systems were used. The width of the gap at selected surfaces on the teeth along the restoration margin was examined using a stereomicroscope On each surface, the gap sizes were measured at the five points. The mean of these measurements was obtained, mean marginal gap value was calculated each of teeth. The data were statistically analyzed by two way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. Results: For marginal adaptation, even as, there were no statistically differences between the porcelain laminate systems (p=0.237), there were statistically differences between preparation groups (p=0.000). Bevel shaped preparation style showed better marginal adaptation than overlapped style (IPS Empress II-Bevel 39.84±7,24 μm, IPS Empress II-Overlap 75,82±14,41 μm, Cerec 3-Bevel 40,91±6,24 μm, Cerec 3-Overlap 70,68±16,27 μm). Conclusion: Clinically, bevel preparation style could be recommended for porcelain laminate veneer indications to the clinicians.

___

1. Berksun S, Kedici PS, Kalıpcılar B. A matrix procedure for reproducing natura lor carved tooth contours in porcelain laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 203-5.
2. Brunton PA, Wilson NHF. Preparations for porcelain laminate veneers in general practice. Br Dent J 1998; 184: 553-6.
3. Ermiş B. Seramik laminate veneerlerin klinik değerlendirmesi: 1 yıllık sonuçlar. Ankara Üniv Dişhek Fak Derg 2003; 30: 115-23.
4. Sim C, Ibbetson RJ. Comparision of fit of porcelain veneers fabricated using different techniques. Int J Prosth 1993: 6: 36-42.
5. Trushkowsky RD. Accurate Provisional Cementation: Prelude to an Esthetic Ceramic Restoration. Contemporary Esthet 1999: 21: 80-4.
6. Aphold W, Bindl A, Luthy H. Flexural Strength of Cerec 2 Machined and Jointed Inceram-Alumina and InceramZirconia. Dent Mater 2001: 17; 260-7.
7. Akbar JH, Petrie CS, Walker MP, Williams K, Eick JD. Marginal Adaptation of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM Composite Crowns using Two Different Finish Line Preparation Designs, J Prosthodont 2006; 15, 155-63.
8. Gürel G. Porselen Laminate Venerler Bilim Ve Sanatı, Quintessence Yayıncılık Ltd. Şti, İstanbul, (2004).
9. Walls AWG, Wassel RW. Crowns and Other Extra Coronal Restorations: Porcelain Laminate Veneers. Br Dental Journal 2002; 193: 73-82.
10. Diren A. Sabit restorasyonlarda marginal uyum ölçümünün önemi. Hacc Dis Hek Fak Derg. 1994; 18: 53-5.
11. Abbate FM, Tjan AHL, Dent D. Comparison of the marginal fit of various ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61: 527-31.
12. Lui JL. The effect of fiting shrinkage on the marginal fit of porcelain jacket crowns. Br Dent J 1980; 149: 43-5.
13. Mc Laren EA, White SN. Glass-infiltrated zirconia/ alumina-based ceramic for crowns and fixed partial dentures:cilinical and laboratory guidelines. Quintessence Dent Techn 2000; 23: 63-276.
14. Karlsson S. The fit of Procera titanium crowns. An in vitro and clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51: 129-34.
15. Weaver JD, Johnson GH, Bales DJ. Marginal adaptation of castable ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66: 747- 53.
16. McLean JW, Von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11.
17. Kashani HG, Khera SC, Guker IA. The effects of bevel angulation on marginal integrity. J Am Dent Assoc 1981; 103: 882-85.
18. Castelnuovo J, Tjan AHL, Phillips K, Nicholls JI, Kois JC. Fracture Load and Mode of Failure of Ceramic Veneers with Different Preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 171-80.
19. Cleyde JS, Gilmour A. Porcelain Veneers: A Preliminary Review. Br Dent J 1988; 164: 9-14.
20. Giordano RA. Dental ceramic restorative systems. Compendium 1996; 17: 779-94.
21. Vahidi F, Egloff ET, Pano FV. Evaluation of marginal adaptation of all ceramic crowns and metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66: 426-31.
22. Reich S, Wichmann M, Nkenke E, Proeschel P. Clinical fit of allceramic three unit fixed partial dentures,generated with three different CAD/CAM systems. Eur J Oral Sci 2005; 113: 174-79.
23. Stappert FJ, Dai M, Chitmongkolsuk S, Gerds T, Strub JR. Marginal adaptation of three-unit fixed partial dentures constructed from pressed ceramic systems. Br Dent J 2004;196: 766-70.
24. Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: A review. Oper Dent 1997; 22: 173- 85.
25. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Clinical Evaluation of Adhesively Placed Cerec Endo-Crowns After 2 Years-Preliminary Results. J Adhes Dent 1999; 1: 255-65.
26. Sato K, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Relation between Cavity Design and Marginal Adaptation in a Machine-Milled Ceramic Restorative System. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29: 24-7.
27. Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T. Marginal and Internal Fit of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM All-Ceramic Crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 244-8.
28. Bindl A. Mörmann WH. An up to 5-year clinical evaluation of posterior In-Ceram CAD/CAM core crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 451-56.
29. Üçtaşlı S, Wilson HJ, Unterbrink G, Zaimoğlu A. The strength of a heat-pressed all-ceramic restorative material. J Oral Rehabil 1996; 23: 257-61.
30. Persson M, Andersson M, Bergman B. The accuracy of a highprecision digitizer for CAD/CAM of crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1995; 74: 223-29.
31. Apholt W, Bindl A, Luthy H. Flexural Strength of Cerec 2 Machined and Jointed Inceram-Alumina and InceramZirconia. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 260-7.
32. Pallesen U, Van Dijken JW. An 8-Year Evaluation of Sintered Ceramic and Glass Ceramic Inlays Processed by The Cerec CAD/CAM System. Eur J Oral Sci 2000; 108: 239-46.
33. Hunter AJ, Hunter AR. Gingival crown margin configurations: a review and discussion. Part I: Terminology and widths. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64: 548-52.
34. Sorensen JA, Okamoto SK, Seghi RR, Yarovesky U. Marginal fidelity of four methods of swaged metal matrix crown fabrication. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 162-73