Faculty Bibliography

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Marginal discrepancy influenced by the choice of processing material used for the ceramic laminate veneers needs to be explored further for better clinical application. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the amount of cervical and incisal marginal discrepancy associated with different ceramic laminate veneering materials. SETTINGS AND DESIGN/METHODS:trial. SUBJECTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Ten central incisors were prepared for laminate veneers with 2 mm uniform reduction and heavy chamfer finish line. Ceramic laminate veneers fabricated over the prepared teeth using four different processing materials were categorized into four groups as Group I - aluminous porcelain veneers, Group II - lithium disilicate ceramic veneers, Group III - lithium disilicate-leucite-based veneers, Group IV - zirconia-based ceramic veneers. The cervical and incisal marginal discrepancy was measured using a scanning electron microscope. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED/METHODS:Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS:< 0.001, respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study concluded veneers fabricated using leucite reinforced lithium disilicate exhibited the least marginal discrepancy followed by lithium disilicate ceramic, aluminous porcelain, and zirconia-based ceramics. The marginal discrepancy was more in the incisal region than in the cervical region in all the groups.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Marginal discrepancy severely affects the long term success of All ceramic complete veneer crowns. The precise role of resin luting agents influencing this phenomenon needs to be explored further. AIM/OBJECTIVE:To estimate and compare the marginal discrepancy in CAD/CAM processed All ceramic complete veneer crowns prior and following luting with resin bonded luting agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Extracted human maxillary first premolars were randomly allocated into four groups of 27 samples each Viz., Group I-Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) (RelyX), Group II-Bis-GMA based dual cure resin cement (Variolink II), Group III-PMMA based resin cement (Superbond), Group IV- Urethane Dimethacrylate resin cement (Calibra). Following tooth preparation, CAD/CAM All ceramic complete veneer crowns were fabricated and sectioned and marginal discrepancy was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope (TESCAN, Magnification power-1,00,000x) prior and after luting with the experimental resin cements. RESULTS:The vertical and horizontal discrepancy before and after cementation with Group I [270.08±103.10μm, 165.3±53.00μm and 270.86±102.70μm, 166.62±54.96μm respectively]; Group II [254.21±79.20μm, 117.75±24.29μm and 234.81±79μm, 116.89±18.22μm respectively]; Group III [272.47±86.25μm, 142.08±50.83μm and 251.82±62.69μm, 136.07±44.95μm respectively]; Group IV were [260.28±64.81μm, 116.98±17.71μm and 233.08±69.44μm, 116.58±21.13μm respectively]. ANOVA inferred a statistically significant difference between the four test specimen with regards to vertical and horizontal marginal discrepancy after cementation (F=9.092, p<0.001), (F=10.97, p<0.001). Tukey HSD Post-hoc test observed significant differences in vertical and horizontal marginal discrepancies between the resin modified glass ionomer and resin cements (p<0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Resin cements exhibited a greater reduction in the marginal discrepancy than the resin modified glass ionomer following luting in All ceramic complete veneer crowns. Hence resin cements are more preferable to GIC for luting All ceramic complete veneer crowns.