James Dudley BDS, MHSM, DClinDent(Pros), FPFA, FICD, MRACDS (Dr) , Taseef Hasan Farook BDS, MScDent, PhD
{"title":"烤瓷单冠固接前边缘间隙测量:系统回顾。","authors":"James Dudley BDS, MHSM, DClinDent(Pros), FPFA, FICD, MRACDS (Dr) , Taseef Hasan Farook BDS, MScDent, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.01.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>Different instruments have been used to measure the marginal gaps of crowns in vitro. However, a comprehensive systematic review is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the existing literature on the instruments used for the in vitro marginal gap measurement of ceramic single crowns before cementation and to determine whether the crown material and method of fabrication influenced the marginal gap.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>The search was conducted in 2024 across the EBSCO Host, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and predefined eligibility criteria. Eligible articles were screened to evaluate 6 instruments for measuring crown marginal gaps: direct view microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, impression replica, cross-sectioning, microcomputed tomography, and 3-dimensional (3D) superimposition. The normality of the data was assessed by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and the differences in mean marginal gap were statistically evaluated using the Welch ANOVA (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Ninety-two articles were included, with 77 documenting single measurement instruments and 15 using a combination of 2 or more measurement instruments. Direct view microscopy was the most used instrument and appeared in 31 (40%) of the studies. No significant differences in mean marginal gap (F=2.09, <em>P</em>=.077) were found across the 6 measurement instruments. Across all studies, excluding those using 3D superimposition, the mean ±standard deviation number of marginal gap measurements per crown was 34.3 ±50.6. Among the 77 studies using a single measurement instrument, 64 used computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology to fabricate the crowns. CAD-CAM crowns had a mean ±standard deviation marginal gap of 78.9 ±28.6 µm (n=64) compared with 71.6 ±29.5 µm (n=13) for crowns manufactured using conventional methods. Zirconia and lithium disilicate were the most researched materials. Zirconia crowns recorded a mean ±standard deviation marginal gap of 69.4 ±34.2 µm for 972 crowns, which was significantly different (<em>P</em>=.045) from lithium disilicate with a mean ±standard deviation marginal gap of 92.2 ±42.5 µm for 602 crowns.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Direct view microscopy was the most used marginal gap measurement instrument for ceramic single crowns before cementation, and CAD-CAM was the most used crown fabrication method. No significant differences in mean marginal gap were found among the 6 marginal gap measurement instruments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"133 5","pages":"Pages 1145-1156"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Marginal gap measurement of ceramic single crowns before cementation: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"James Dudley BDS, MHSM, DClinDent(Pros), FPFA, FICD, MRACDS (Dr) , Taseef Hasan Farook BDS, MScDent, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.01.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>Different instruments have been used to measure the marginal gaps of crowns in vitro. However, a comprehensive systematic review is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the existing literature on the instruments used for the in vitro marginal gap measurement of ceramic single crowns before cementation and to determine whether the crown material and method of fabrication influenced the marginal gap.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>The search was conducted in 2024 across the EBSCO Host, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and predefined eligibility criteria. Eligible articles were screened to evaluate 6 instruments for measuring crown marginal gaps: direct view microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, impression replica, cross-sectioning, microcomputed tomography, and 3-dimensional (3D) superimposition. The normality of the data was assessed by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and the differences in mean marginal gap were statistically evaluated using the Welch ANOVA (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Ninety-two articles were included, with 77 documenting single measurement instruments and 15 using a combination of 2 or more measurement instruments. Direct view microscopy was the most used instrument and appeared in 31 (40%) of the studies. No significant differences in mean marginal gap (F=2.09, <em>P</em>=.077) were found across the 6 measurement instruments. Across all studies, excluding those using 3D superimposition, the mean ±standard deviation number of marginal gap measurements per crown was 34.3 ±50.6. Among the 77 studies using a single measurement instrument, 64 used computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology to fabricate the crowns. CAD-CAM crowns had a mean ±standard deviation marginal gap of 78.9 ±28.6 µm (n=64) compared with 71.6 ±29.5 µm (n=13) for crowns manufactured using conventional methods. Zirconia and lithium disilicate were the most researched materials. Zirconia crowns recorded a mean ±standard deviation marginal gap of 69.4 ±34.2 µm for 972 crowns, which was significantly different (<em>P</em>=.045) from lithium disilicate with a mean ±standard deviation marginal gap of 92.2 ±42.5 µm for 602 crowns.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Direct view microscopy was the most used marginal gap measurement instrument for ceramic single crowns before cementation, and CAD-CAM was the most used crown fabrication method. No significant differences in mean marginal gap were found among the 6 marginal gap measurement instruments.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"133 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1145-1156\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002239132500040X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002239132500040X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
问题说明:不同的仪器已经被用来测量体外冠的边缘间隙。然而,缺乏全面的系统评价。目的:本系统综述的目的是评估现有文献中用于陶瓷单冠固接前体外边缘间隙测量的仪器,并确定冠的材料和制作方法是否影响边缘间隙。材料和方法:检索于2024年在EBSCO主机、Scopus、PubMed和Web of Science数据库中进行,遵循系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南和预定义的资格标准。筛选符合条件的文章,评估6种测量冠边缘间隙的仪器:直接观察显微镜、扫描电子显微镜、印模复制、横切、微计算机断层扫描和三维(3D)叠加。采用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验检验资料的正态性,采用Welch方差分析评估平均边际差距的差异(α= 0.05)。结果:纳入92篇文献,其中77篇文献采用单一测量仪器,15篇文献采用两种或两种以上测量仪器的组合。直接显微镜是使用最多的仪器,在31例(40%)的研究中出现。6种测量工具的平均边际间隙无显著差异(F=2.09, P= 0.077)。在所有研究中,不包括使用3D叠加的研究,每个冠边缘间隙测量的平均值±标准差数为34.3±50.6。在使用单一测量仪器的77项研究中,64项研究使用计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD-CAM)技术来制作冠。CAD-CAM冠的平均±标准差边际间隙为78.9±28.6µm (n=64),而传统方法冠的平均±标准差边际间隙为71.6±29.5µm (n=13)。氧化锆和二硅酸锂是研究最多的材料。氧化锆冠972个冠的平均±标准差边缘间隙为69.4±34.2µm,与二硅酸锂冠602个冠的平均±标准差边缘间隙为92.2±42.5µm有显著性差异(P= 0.045)。结论:直接显微镜是烤瓷单冠固接前最常用的边缘间隙测量仪器,CAD-CAM是烤瓷单冠最常用的制作方法。6种边际间隙测量工具的平均边际间隙无显著差异。
Marginal gap measurement of ceramic single crowns before cementation: A systematic review
Statement of problem
Different instruments have been used to measure the marginal gaps of crowns in vitro. However, a comprehensive systematic review is lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the existing literature on the instruments used for the in vitro marginal gap measurement of ceramic single crowns before cementation and to determine whether the crown material and method of fabrication influenced the marginal gap.
Material and methods
The search was conducted in 2024 across the EBSCO Host, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and predefined eligibility criteria. Eligible articles were screened to evaluate 6 instruments for measuring crown marginal gaps: direct view microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, impression replica, cross-sectioning, microcomputed tomography, and 3-dimensional (3D) superimposition. The normality of the data was assessed by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and the differences in mean marginal gap were statistically evaluated using the Welch ANOVA (α=.05).
Results
Ninety-two articles were included, with 77 documenting single measurement instruments and 15 using a combination of 2 or more measurement instruments. Direct view microscopy was the most used instrument and appeared in 31 (40%) of the studies. No significant differences in mean marginal gap (F=2.09, P=.077) were found across the 6 measurement instruments. Across all studies, excluding those using 3D superimposition, the mean ±standard deviation number of marginal gap measurements per crown was 34.3 ±50.6. Among the 77 studies using a single measurement instrument, 64 used computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology to fabricate the crowns. CAD-CAM crowns had a mean ±standard deviation marginal gap of 78.9 ±28.6 µm (n=64) compared with 71.6 ±29.5 µm (n=13) for crowns manufactured using conventional methods. Zirconia and lithium disilicate were the most researched materials. Zirconia crowns recorded a mean ±standard deviation marginal gap of 69.4 ±34.2 µm for 972 crowns, which was significantly different (P=.045) from lithium disilicate with a mean ±standard deviation marginal gap of 92.2 ±42.5 µm for 602 crowns.
Conclusions
Direct view microscopy was the most used marginal gap measurement instrument for ceramic single crowns before cementation, and CAD-CAM was the most used crown fabrication method. No significant differences in mean marginal gap were found among the 6 marginal gap measurement instruments.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.