World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

An In Vitro Comparison of Composite Laminate Veneer Fit Using Computer-aided Design/Computer-aided Manufacturing Milling, Three-dimensional Printing, and Two Resin Cements

Baljinder Kaur, P Jayakrishna Babu, V Bhanu Chander, Lokesh Sunkala, Kopparapu Venkata Guru Charan Karthik, Kiran K Rathore

Keywords : Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing milling, Conventional technique, Marginal fit, Three-dimensional printing, Veneers

Citation Information : Kaur B, Babu PJ, Chander VB, Sunkala L, Karthik KV, Rathore KK. An In Vitro Comparison of Composite Laminate Veneer Fit Using Computer-aided Design/Computer-aided Manufacturing Milling, Three-dimensional Printing, and Two Resin Cements. World J Dent 2024; 15 (4):326-330.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2407

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-05-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The success of the manufactured veneers depends significantly on their margin. The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of composite veneer made by conventional computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milling and three-dimensional (3D) printing technique and cemented with two types of composite resin cement was the focus of this in vitro study. Materials and methods: Around 10 composite veneers were fabricated from Ivoclar Vivadent Tetric N-Ceram composite material, 10 veneers were milled from composite blank bredent UK, and 10 veneers were 3D printed from Aqua Ivory 4K composite resin material. Veneers were cemented to composite resin dies using either RelyX veneer cement (3M ESPE RelyX U200) or Panavia cement (Kuraray Panavia SA). The specimens were sectioned incisogingivally followed by the scanning electron microscope examination for the internal gap and marginal discrepancy at three different locations. Results: The difference between the groups was examined using Tukey multiple comparisons and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Veneers fabricated with conventional layering technique showed significant differences in better marginal and internal adaptation (IA) compared to veneers fabricated by CAD/CAM milling and 3D printing technique (p < 0.001). Gaps at the cervical position were significantly lower than gaps at the incisal position. Conclusion: Smaller marginal and internal discrepancies were recorded for veneers fabricated by using the conventional technique compared with milled and 3D-printed veneers. Larger discrepancies were present initially than cervically. Clinical significance: Marginal and IA of composite veneer largely determines their long-term success.


PDF Share
  1. Celik N, Yapar MI, Taşpinar N, et al. The effect of polymerization and preparation techniques on the microleakage of composite laminate veneers. Contemp Clin Dent 2017;8(3):400–404. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_46_17
  2. Celik C, Gemalmaz D. Comparison of marginal integrity of ceramic and composite veneer restorations luted with two different resin agents: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15(1):59–64. PMID: 11887601.
  3. Al-Dwairi ZN, Alkhatatbeh RM, Baba NZ, et al. A comparison of the marginal and internal fit of porcelain laminate veneers fabricated by pressing and CAD-CAM milling and cemented with 2 different resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(3):470–476. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.008
  4. Farrell CV, Johnson GH, Oswald MT, et al. Effect of cement selection and finishing technique on marginal opening of cast gold inlays. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(4):287–292. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60063-3
  5. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in-vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131(3):107–111. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708
  6. Wu J, Xie H, Sadr A, et al. Evaluation of internal fit and marginal adaptation of provisional crowns fabricated with three different techniques. Sensors (Basel) 2021;21(3):740. DOI: 10.3390/s21030740
  7. Schmalz G, Federlin M, Reich E. Effect of dimension of luting space and luting composite on marginal adaptation of class II ceramic inlays. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(4):392–399. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80337-3
  8. Mirra AEG, El–Mahalawy S. Fracture strength and microleakage of laminate veneer. Cairo Dent J 2009;25(2):245–254.
  9. Meharry MR, Schwartz J, Montalvo A, et al. Comparison of 2 self-adhesive resin cements with or without a self-etching primer. Gen Dent 2020;68(1):22–28. PMID: 31859658.
  10. Aboushelib MN, Elmahy WA, Ghazy MH. Internal adaptation, marginal accuracy and microleakage of a pressable versus a machinable ceramic laminate veneers. J Dent 2012;40(8):670–677. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.019
  11. Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC, et al. Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro. J Dent 2012;40(3):202–209. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.12.008
  12. Mine A, Kabetani T, Kawaguchi-Uemura A, et al. Effectiveness of current adhesive systems when bonding to CAD/CAM indirect resin materials: a review of 32 publications. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2019:55(1);41–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2018.10.001
  13. Heboyan A, Vardanyan A, Karobari MI, et al. Dental luting cements: an updated comprehensive review. Molecules 2023;28(4):1619. DOI: 10.3390/molecules28041619
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.