Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Influence of CAD-CAM Materials on Marginal Fit of Single Unit Crowns: An In Vitro SEM-Based Study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Influence of CAD-CAM Materials on Marginal Fit of Single Unit Crowns: An In Vitro SEM-Based Study
Do you wish to request the book?
Influence of CAD-CAM Materials on Marginal Fit of Single Unit Crowns: An In Vitro SEM-Based Study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Influence of CAD-CAM Materials on Marginal Fit of Single Unit Crowns: An In Vitro SEM-Based Study
2025
Overview
Background/Objectives: The marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM restorations remains a key determinant of long-term clinical success, particularly in minimally invasive preparations. This in vitro study evaluated and compared the marginal gap of three CAD/CAM restorative materials—Cerasmart, G-CAM, and IPS Empress CAD—using standardized preparation and SEM measurement protocols. Methods: A total of 18 crowns were fabricated, of which 9 presented margins sufficiently interpretable under SEM and were included in the pooled quantitative analysis (n = 362 measurement points). Marginal gaps were recorded at 45×, 100× and 450× magnification using a Jeol JSM 25S scanning electron microscope. Normality and variance homogeneity were verified prior to parametric testing. Results: When pooled per material group, the mean ± SD marginal gap values were 18.53 ± 14.15 µm for Cerasmart, 21.60 ± 14.89 µm for G-CAM, and 47.09 ± 16.93 µm for IPS Empress CAD. All values fell below the contemporary clinical threshold of <70 µm for adhesive cementation. Pairwise comparison showed a large difference between IPS Empress CAD and the two resin-based materials, whereas the difference between Cerasmart and G-CAM was small. Conclusions: Hybrid and resin nano-ceramic CAD/CAM materials demonstrated narrower marginal gaps compared with the glass ceramic tested, likely due to their lower elastic modulus and greater seating accommodation during cementation. Within the limits of this in vitro design, all materials exhibited marginal adaptation consistent with current clinical acceptability criteria.
Publisher
MDPI AG
Subject
