PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the marginal fit of prefabricated occlusal veneers with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM)-milled zirconia occlusal veneers in the posterior teeth.
METHODS: Forty extracted human maxillary premolars were divided into two groups of 20 each. Group 1 was prepared to receive prefabricated occlusal veneers, and Group 2 was prepared to receive CAD-CAM-milled zirconia occlusal veneers.
METHODS: Prefabricated samples (Edelweiss) were selected for Group 1, whereas for Group 2, the tooth preparations were scanned, and occlusal veneers were fabricated using Exocad designing software and milling machine. After luting, both the groups were submerged in dye, sectioned, and evaluated for marginal fit and microleakage under a stereomicroscope using the microscope imaging software and its measurement tool.
METHODS: Data collected were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS 27.0. Intragroup and intergroup comparison was done using the Mann-Whitney U test. The Chi-square test was applied to check the depth of penetration of dye based on percentages.
RESULTS: The marginal gap of zirconia occlusal veneers fabricated with CAD-CAM is higher compared to that of prefabricated occlusal veneers. Similarly, the depth of penetration of dye is higher in CAD-CAM-milled zirconia occlusal veneers than prefabricated occlusal veneers.
CONCLUSIONS: The marginal fit of prefabricated occlusal veneer is better than the marginal fit of zirconia occlusal veneers fabricated with CAD-CAM. Similarly, it can also be concluded that the microleakage of prefabricated occlusal veneer is less compared to the CAD-CAM-milled zirconia occlusal veneers.
METHODS: Forty extracted human maxillary premolars were divided into two groups of 20 each. Group 1 was prepared to receive prefabricated occlusal veneers, and Group 2 was prepared to receive CAD-CAM-milled zirconia occlusal veneers.
METHODS: Prefabricated samples (Edelweiss) were selected for Group 1, whereas for Group 2, the tooth preparations were scanned, and occlusal veneers were fabricated using Exocad designing software and milling machine. After luting, both the groups were submerged in dye, sectioned, and evaluated for marginal fit and microleakage under a stereomicroscope using the microscope imaging software and its measurement tool.
METHODS: Data collected were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS 27.0. Intragroup and intergroup comparison was done using the Mann-Whitney U test. The Chi-square test was applied to check the depth of penetration of dye based on percentages.
RESULTS: The marginal gap of zirconia occlusal veneers fabricated with CAD-CAM is higher compared to that of prefabricated occlusal veneers. Similarly, the depth of penetration of dye is higher in CAD-CAM-milled zirconia occlusal veneers than prefabricated occlusal veneers.
CONCLUSIONS: The marginal fit of prefabricated occlusal veneer is better than the marginal fit of zirconia occlusal veneers fabricated with CAD-CAM. Similarly, it can also be concluded that the microleakage of prefabricated occlusal veneer is less compared to the CAD-CAM-milled zirconia occlusal veneers.
摘要：
目的：这项研究的目的是比较预制咬合贴面与计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造（CAD-CAM）铣削的氧化锆咬合贴面的边缘配合。
方法：将40颗提取的人上颌前磨牙分为两组，每组20颗。第1组准备接受预制咬合贴面，第2组准备接受CAD-CAM研磨的氧化锆咬合贴面。
方法：第1组选择预制样品（雪绒花），而第2组选择扫描牙齿制剂，使用Exocad设计软件和铣床制造咬合贴面。luting之后,两组都被淹没在染料中，分段,并使用显微镜成像软件及其测量工具在立体显微镜下评估边缘拟合和微渗漏。
方法：使用SPSS27.0对收集的数据进行统计分析。使用Mann-WhitneyU检验进行组内和组间比较。应用卡方检验来基于百分比检查染料的穿透深度。
结果：与预制咬合贴面相比，用CAD-CAM制造的氧化锆咬合贴面的边缘间隙更高。同样，在CAD-CAM研磨的氧化锆咬合贴面中，染料的渗透深度比预制咬合贴面高。
结论：预制牙合贴面的边缘配合优于用CAD-CAM制造的氧化锆牙合贴面的边缘配合。同样，还可以得出结论，与CAD-CAM研磨的氧化锆咬合单板相比，预制咬合单板的微渗漏较少。
方法：将40颗提取的人上颌前磨牙分为两组，每组20颗。第1组准备接受预制咬合贴面，第2组准备接受CAD-CAM研磨的氧化锆咬合贴面。
方法：第1组选择预制样品（雪绒花），而第2组选择扫描牙齿制剂，使用Exocad设计软件和铣床制造咬合贴面。luting之后,两组都被淹没在染料中，分段,并使用显微镜成像软件及其测量工具在立体显微镜下评估边缘拟合和微渗漏。
方法：使用SPSS27.0对收集的数据进行统计分析。使用Mann-WhitneyU检验进行组内和组间比较。应用卡方检验来基于百分比检查染料的穿透深度。
结果：与预制咬合贴面相比，用CAD-CAM制造的氧化锆咬合贴面的边缘间隙更高。同样，在CAD-CAM研磨的氧化锆咬合贴面中，染料的渗透深度比预制咬合贴面高。
结论：预制牙合贴面的边缘配合优于用CAD-CAM制造的氧化锆牙合贴面的边缘配合。同样，还可以得出结论，与CAD-CAM研磨的氧化锆咬合单板相比，预制咬合单板的微渗漏较少。
