• 검색어에 아래의 연산자를 사용하시면 더 정확한 검색결과를 얻을 수 있습니다.
  • 검색연산자
검색연산자 기능 검색시 예
() 우선순위가 가장 높은 연산자 예1) (나노 (기계 | machine))
공백 두 개의 검색어(식)을 모두 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (나노 기계)
예2) 나노 장영실
| 두 개의 검색어(식) 중 하나 이상 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (줄기세포 | 면역)
예2) 줄기세포 | 장영실
! NOT 이후에 있는 검색어가 포함된 문서는 제외 예1) (황금 !백금)
예2) !image
* 검색어의 *란에 0개 이상의 임의의 문자가 포함된 문서 검색 예) semi*
"" 따옴표 내의 구문과 완전히 일치하는 문서만 검색 예) "Transform and Quantization"
쳇봇 이모티콘
ScienceON 챗봇입니다.
궁금한 것은 저에게 물어봐주세요.

논문 상세정보

Celay/In-Ceram, Conventional In-Ceram, Empress 2 전부도재관의 변연적합도에 관한 비교 연구



There have been many studies about marginal discrepancy of single restorations made by various systems and materials. But many of statistical inferences are not definite because of sample size, measurement number, measuring instruments. etc. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal adaptations of the anterior single restorations made by different systems and to consider more desirable statistical methods in analysing the marginal fit. The in vitro marginal discrepancies of three different all-ceramic crown systems (Celay In-Ceram. Conventional In-Ceram. IPS Empress 2 layering technique) and one control group (PFM) were evaluated and compared. The crowns were made from one extracted maxillary central incisor prepared with a 1mm shoulder margin and $6^{\circ}$ taper walls by milling machine. 10 crowns per each system were fabricated. Measurements or a crown were recorded at 50 points that were randomly selected for marginal gap evaluation. Non-parametric statistical analysis was performed for the results. Within the limits of this study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1 Mean gap dimensions and standard deviations at the marginal opening for the maxillary incisor crowns were $98.2{\pm}40.6{\mu}m$ for PFM, $83.5{\pm}18.7{\mu}m$ for Celay In-Ceram, $104.9{\pm}44.1{\mu}m$ for conventional In-Ceram, and $45.5{\pm}11.5{\mu}m$ for IPS Empress 2 layering technique. The IPS Empress 2 system showed the smallest marginal gap (P<0.05). The marginal openings of the other three groups were not significantly different (P<0.05). 2 The marginal discrepancies found in this study were all within clinically acceptable standards ($100\sim150{\mu}m$). 3. When the variable is so controlled that the system may be the only one, mean value is interpreted to be the marginal discrepancy of a restoration which is made by each system and standard deviation is to be technique-sensitivity of each one. 4. From the standard deviations. the copy-milling technique (Celay/In-Ceram) was not considered to be technique-sensitive in comparison with other methods. 5. Parametric analysis is more reliable than non-parametric one in interpretation of the mean and standard deviation. The sample size of each group has to be more than 30 to use parametric statistics. The level of clinically acceptable marginal fit has not been established. Further studies are needed.

참고문헌 (23)

  1. Beschnidt SM. Strub JR. Evaluation of the marginal accuracy of different all-ceramic crown systems after simulation in the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil 1999:26:582-93 
  2. Cooney JP. Richter WA. MacEntee MI. Evaluation of ceramic margins for metalceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1985:54:1-5 
  3. Schaerer P, Tomohiko S, Wohlwend A. A comparison of the marginal fit of three cast ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 1988:59:534-42 
  4. Groten M, Girthofer S, Probster L. Marginal fit consistency of copy-milled all-ceramic crowns during fabrication by light and scanning electron microscopic analysis in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 1997:24:871-81 
  5. Groten M, Axmann D, Probster L, Weber H. Determination of the minimum number of marginal gap measurements required for practical in vitro testing. J Prosthet Dent 2000: 83: 40-9 
  6. Bjorn AL. Bjorn R Grkovic B. Marginal fit of restorations and its relation to periodontal bone level. II. Crowns. Odontol Revy 1970:21:337-46 
  7. Blackman R. Baez R. Barghi N. Marginal accuracy and geometry of cast titanium copings. J Prosthet Dent 1992:67 :435-40 
  8. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966:16:297-305 
  9. Shearer B, Gough MB, Setchell DJ. Influence of marginal configuration and porcelain addition on the fit of In-Ceram crowns. Biomaterials 1996: 17: 1891-5 
  10. Sorensen SE, Larsen IB, Jorgensen KD. Gingival and alveolar bone reaction to marginal fit of subgingival crown margins Scand J Dent Res 1986:94: 109-14 
  11. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971:131:107-11 
  12. Hwang JW. Yang JH. Fracture strength of copy-milled and conventional In-Ceram crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2001:28:678-83 
  13. Richter-Snapp K. Aquilino SA. Svare CW, Turner KA. Change in marginal fit as related to marginal design, alloy type and porcelain proximity in porcelain fused-to-metal restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1988:60:435-9 
  14. Kern M, Schaller HG, Strub JR. Marginal fit of restorations before and after cementation in vivo. Int J Prosthodont 1993:6:585-91 
  15. Pera P. Gilodi S, Bassi F. Carossa S. In vitro marginal adaptation of alumina porcelain ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1994:72:585-90 
  16. May KB. Russell MM. Razzoog ME. Lang BR. Precision of fit: The Procera AllCeram crown. J Prosthet Dent 1998:80:394-404 
  17. Sulaiman F, Chai J, Jameson LM, Wozniak WT. A comparison of the marginal fit of InCeram. IPS Empress, and Procera Crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1997:10:478-84 
  18. Hung SH. Hung KS, Eick JD. Chappell RP. Marginal fit of porcelain-fused-to-metal and two types of ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent 1990:63:26-31 
  19. Chao LL. Statistics: methods and analyses. Tokyo-Mctfraw-Hill Inc. 1974 
  20. Leong D, Chai J. Lautenschlager E, Gilbert J. Marginal fit of machine-milled titanium and cast titanium single crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1994:7:440-7 
  21. Rinke S, Huls A. Jahn L. Marginal accuracy and fracture strength of conventional and copy-milled all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1995:8:303-10 
  22. Grey NJ, Piddock V, Wilson MA. In vitro comparison of conventional crowns and a newall-ceramic system. J Dent 1993:21:4751 
  23. Sorensen JA. A rationale for comparison of plaque-retaining properties of crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989:62:264-9 

이 논문을 인용한 문헌 (6)

  1. Kwon, Yong-Joong ; Lee, Young-Soo ; Park, Won-Hee 2008. "Comparative study in marginal adaptation of zirconia cores fabricated with 3 different CAD/CAM systems" 대한치과보철학회지 = The journal of Korean academy of prosthodontics, 46(1): 12~21 
  2. Shin, Eon-Sick ; Lee, Young-Soo ; Park, Won-Hee 2008. "Comparative study in fracture strength of zirconia cores fabricated with three different CAD/CAM systems" 대한치과보철학회지 = The journal of Korean academy of prosthodontics, 46(1): 22~30 
  3. Kim, Yoon-Young ; Park, Won-Hee ; Yoo, Dong-Yeob ; Lee, Young-Soo 2010. "Comparative study in marginal fit of a pressed ceramic and feldspathic porcelain fused to metal restoration" 대한치과보철학회지 = The journal of Korean academy of prosthodontics, 48(4): 273~279 
  4. Kang, Dong-Rim ; Shim, June-Sung ; Moon, Hong-Suk ; Lee, Keun-Woo 2010. "Marginal fidelity of zirconia core using MAD/MAM system" 대한치과보철학회지 = The journal of Korean academy of prosthodontics, 48(1): 1~7 
  5. Huh, Jung-Bo ; Park, Cheong-Gil ; Kim, Ha-Young ; Park, Chan-Kyung ; Shin, Sang-Wan 2010. "Evaluation using Replica Technique on the marginal and internal fitness of zirconia cores by several CAD/CAM systems" 대한치과보철학회지 = The journal of Korean academy of prosthodontics, 48(2): 135~142 
  6. Huh, Jung-Bo ; Kim, U-Sic ; Kim, Ha-Young ; Kim, Jong-Eun ; Lee, Jeong-Yeol ; Kim, Young-Su ; Jeon, Young-Chan ; Shin, Sang-Wan 2011. "Marginal and internal fitness of three-unit zirconia cores fabricated using several CAD/CAM systems" 대한치과보철학회지 = The journal of Korean academy of prosthodontics, 49(3): 236~244 


원문 PDF 다운로드

  • ScienceON :

원문 URL 링크

원문 PDF 파일 및 링크정보가 존재하지 않을 경우 KISTI DDS 시스템에서 제공하는 원문복사서비스를 사용할 수 있습니다. (원문복사서비스 안내 바로 가기)

상세조회 0건 원문조회 0건

DOI 인용 스타일