Comparison of marginal fit between all-porcelain margin versus alumina-supported margin on procera ® alumina crowns

Penwadee Limkangwalmongkol, Edwin Kee, Gerard Jules Chiche, Markus B. Blatz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Procera ® Alumina crowns are widely used; however, the effect of crown margin design on marginal fit is unknown. This study measured and compared the precision of fit of Procera ® Alumina crowns with two crown margin designs: all-porcelain versus alumina-supported margins. Materials and Methods: Sixteen noncarious extracted human premolars were prepared for Procera ® Alumina crowns with an internally rounded shoulder preparation. Impressions were made from all teeth, and master dies were poured with type IV dental stone. The specimens were randomly divided into two groups. Procera ® Alumina crowns were fabricated: eight crowns with circumferential porcelain-butt (all-porcelain) margins and eight crowns with coping (alumina-supported) margins (control). Precision of fit was measured at six points on each crown with a profilometer (profile projector). The data were statistically analyzed with an independent-samples t-test (α < 0.05). Results: The mean marginal gap size (μm) of coping margins was 68.07 ± 16.08 and of porcelain-butt margins was 101.29 ± 43.71. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.065) of the marginal gap size between coping margins and porcelain-butt margins. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that there was no statistically significant difference in the marginal fit of coping and porcelain-butt margins. Both margin designs are within clinically acceptable ranges. Therefore, clinicians may choose to use a coping margin, as it is less labor intensive and requires less time for fabrication, unless there is a specific high esthetic need for a porcelain-butt margin.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)162-166
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Prosthodontics
Volume18
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2009

Fingerprint

Dental Porcelain
Aluminum Oxide
Crowns
Tooth
Procera
Bicuspid
Esthetics

Keywords

  • Fit
  • Margins
  • Procera

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Comparison of marginal fit between all-porcelain margin versus alumina-supported margin on procera ® alumina crowns. / Limkangwalmongkol, Penwadee; Kee, Edwin; Chiche, Gerard Jules; Blatz, Markus B.

In: Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 01.02.2009, p. 162-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Limkangwalmongkol, Penwadee ; Kee, Edwin ; Chiche, Gerard Jules ; Blatz, Markus B. / Comparison of marginal fit between all-porcelain margin versus alumina-supported margin on procera ® alumina crowns. In: Journal of Prosthodontics. 2009 ; Vol. 18, No. 2. pp. 162-166.
@article{ed16d33672b0490693aac22d86d01b58,
title = "Comparison of marginal fit between all-porcelain margin versus alumina-supported margin on procera {\circledR} alumina crowns",
abstract = "Purpose: Procera {\circledR} Alumina crowns are widely used; however, the effect of crown margin design on marginal fit is unknown. This study measured and compared the precision of fit of Procera {\circledR} Alumina crowns with two crown margin designs: all-porcelain versus alumina-supported margins. Materials and Methods: Sixteen noncarious extracted human premolars were prepared for Procera {\circledR} Alumina crowns with an internally rounded shoulder preparation. Impressions were made from all teeth, and master dies were poured with type IV dental stone. The specimens were randomly divided into two groups. Procera {\circledR} Alumina crowns were fabricated: eight crowns with circumferential porcelain-butt (all-porcelain) margins and eight crowns with coping (alumina-supported) margins (control). Precision of fit was measured at six points on each crown with a profilometer (profile projector). The data were statistically analyzed with an independent-samples t-test (α < 0.05). Results: The mean marginal gap size (μm) of coping margins was 68.07 ± 16.08 and of porcelain-butt margins was 101.29 ± 43.71. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.065) of the marginal gap size between coping margins and porcelain-butt margins. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that there was no statistically significant difference in the marginal fit of coping and porcelain-butt margins. Both margin designs are within clinically acceptable ranges. Therefore, clinicians may choose to use a coping margin, as it is less labor intensive and requires less time for fabrication, unless there is a specific high esthetic need for a porcelain-butt margin.",
keywords = "Fit, Margins, Procera",
author = "Penwadee Limkangwalmongkol and Edwin Kee and Chiche, {Gerard Jules} and Blatz, {Markus B.}",
year = "2009",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00396.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "162--166",
journal = "Journal of Prosthodontics",
issn = "1059-941X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of marginal fit between all-porcelain margin versus alumina-supported margin on procera ® alumina crowns

AU - Limkangwalmongkol, Penwadee

AU - Kee, Edwin

AU - Chiche, Gerard Jules

AU - Blatz, Markus B.

PY - 2009/2/1

Y1 - 2009/2/1

N2 - Purpose: Procera ® Alumina crowns are widely used; however, the effect of crown margin design on marginal fit is unknown. This study measured and compared the precision of fit of Procera ® Alumina crowns with two crown margin designs: all-porcelain versus alumina-supported margins. Materials and Methods: Sixteen noncarious extracted human premolars were prepared for Procera ® Alumina crowns with an internally rounded shoulder preparation. Impressions were made from all teeth, and master dies were poured with type IV dental stone. The specimens were randomly divided into two groups. Procera ® Alumina crowns were fabricated: eight crowns with circumferential porcelain-butt (all-porcelain) margins and eight crowns with coping (alumina-supported) margins (control). Precision of fit was measured at six points on each crown with a profilometer (profile projector). The data were statistically analyzed with an independent-samples t-test (α < 0.05). Results: The mean marginal gap size (μm) of coping margins was 68.07 ± 16.08 and of porcelain-butt margins was 101.29 ± 43.71. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.065) of the marginal gap size between coping margins and porcelain-butt margins. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that there was no statistically significant difference in the marginal fit of coping and porcelain-butt margins. Both margin designs are within clinically acceptable ranges. Therefore, clinicians may choose to use a coping margin, as it is less labor intensive and requires less time for fabrication, unless there is a specific high esthetic need for a porcelain-butt margin.

AB - Purpose: Procera ® Alumina crowns are widely used; however, the effect of crown margin design on marginal fit is unknown. This study measured and compared the precision of fit of Procera ® Alumina crowns with two crown margin designs: all-porcelain versus alumina-supported margins. Materials and Methods: Sixteen noncarious extracted human premolars were prepared for Procera ® Alumina crowns with an internally rounded shoulder preparation. Impressions were made from all teeth, and master dies were poured with type IV dental stone. The specimens were randomly divided into two groups. Procera ® Alumina crowns were fabricated: eight crowns with circumferential porcelain-butt (all-porcelain) margins and eight crowns with coping (alumina-supported) margins (control). Precision of fit was measured at six points on each crown with a profilometer (profile projector). The data were statistically analyzed with an independent-samples t-test (α < 0.05). Results: The mean marginal gap size (μm) of coping margins was 68.07 ± 16.08 and of porcelain-butt margins was 101.29 ± 43.71. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.065) of the marginal gap size between coping margins and porcelain-butt margins. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that there was no statistically significant difference in the marginal fit of coping and porcelain-butt margins. Both margin designs are within clinically acceptable ranges. Therefore, clinicians may choose to use a coping margin, as it is less labor intensive and requires less time for fabrication, unless there is a specific high esthetic need for a porcelain-butt margin.

KW - Fit

KW - Margins

KW - Procera

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=60649085368&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=60649085368&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00396.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00396.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 19178619

AN - SCOPUS:60649085368

VL - 18

SP - 162

EP - 166

JO - Journal of Prosthodontics

JF - Journal of Prosthodontics

SN - 1059-941X

IS - 2

ER -