{"title":"Does the choice of the measuring technique affect the comparison of fit between zirconia and cobalt-chromium prostheses?","authors":"Elie E. Daou, Pascale Salameh","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_429_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIMS\nThe objectives of the study were to compare the adaptation of presintered zirconia and cobalt- chromium prostheses using microcomputed tomography (μCT), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and stereomicroscope (SM).\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nTwenty-four fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) were fabricated on metal abutments, duplicated from maxillary first premolar and first molar prepared on a typodont model. Teeth were reduced to obtain chamfer of 1.2 mm and reduction occlusaly of 2 mm occlusal. Scanning of the abutments was done with random assignment to two groups receiving the FDPs made from soft-milled Co-Cr (n = 12) and zirconia (n = 12). Marginal and internal gaps were assessed using three evaluation techniques (X-ray microcomputer tomography, SEM, and stereomicroscopy).\n\n\nSTATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED\nComparison of the results was made using Levene and analysis of variance tests (α =0.05).\n\n\nRESULTS\nIrrespective of the material tested, statistical differences were found between the measuring techniques (P = 0.001 overall); the obtained mean gaps were for CT scan (92.60 ± 13.31), for SEM (101.92 ± 23.03), and for SM (113.44 ± 14.68): the multiple comparisons between techniques found a significant difference between CT and SM (P < 0.001), and SEM and SM (P = 0.025). When materials were compared within each measuring technique, Co-Cr showed lower values compared to zirconia in SEM (P < 0.001) and Stereo (P = 0.049); similar results were found in CT.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nResults values differed with the chosen measuring technique. Co-Cr prostheses had a better fit than zirconia prostheses in SEM and Stereo. µCT showed comparable results to SEM, smaller than SM results.","PeriodicalId":519508,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"586 1","pages":"201-207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_429_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
AIMS
The objectives of the study were to compare the adaptation of presintered zirconia and cobalt- chromium prostheses using microcomputed tomography (μCT), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and stereomicroscope (SM).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty-four fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) were fabricated on metal abutments, duplicated from maxillary first premolar and first molar prepared on a typodont model. Teeth were reduced to obtain chamfer of 1.2 mm and reduction occlusaly of 2 mm occlusal. Scanning of the abutments was done with random assignment to two groups receiving the FDPs made from soft-milled Co-Cr (n = 12) and zirconia (n = 12). Marginal and internal gaps were assessed using three evaluation techniques (X-ray microcomputer tomography, SEM, and stereomicroscopy).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
Comparison of the results was made using Levene and analysis of variance tests (α =0.05).
RESULTS
Irrespective of the material tested, statistical differences were found between the measuring techniques (P = 0.001 overall); the obtained mean gaps were for CT scan (92.60 ± 13.31), for SEM (101.92 ± 23.03), and for SM (113.44 ± 14.68): the multiple comparisons between techniques found a significant difference between CT and SM (P < 0.001), and SEM and SM (P = 0.025). When materials were compared within each measuring technique, Co-Cr showed lower values compared to zirconia in SEM (P < 0.001) and Stereo (P = 0.049); similar results were found in CT.
CONCLUSIONS
Results values differed with the chosen measuring technique. Co-Cr prostheses had a better fit than zirconia prostheses in SEM and Stereo. µCT showed comparable results to SEM, smaller than SM results.