Comparison of the Marginal Fitness of Feldespatic all Ceramic Crowns with Two Finish Lines (Chamfer and Shoulder) Fabricated by CAD/CAM System

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Operative and Esthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Department of Operative and Esthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran


Background and Objective: To study the effect of tooth preparation on marginal adaptation of all-ceramic crown designed by the CAD/CAM system. 
Subjects and Methods: Twenty master dies (height: 7 mm, Ø: 5mm, conicity: 10°) with different finish lines (chamfer 50° finish line 0.8 mm depth) and (shoulder 90 degree with rounded  axiogingival internal line angel 1mm depth) were manufactured. Ten impressions were made from each master die using Vinyl polysiloxane. Impressions were poured in type IV dental stone, and 20 ceramic crowns were subsequently milled with cad cam.The crowns were fixed on their respective metallic die using a metallic fixation device. The marginal discrepancy was measured at 60 points on the respective metallic die by using stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and t test (P<0.05).
Results: Significant difference was observed between marginal discrepancy of 2 groups (chamfer: 75.595 ± 2.119 micron, and shoulder: 81.656 ± 2.127 micron, P>0.05). Marginal design with chamfer is better than shoulder. In shoulder design significant difference was observed between buccal surface and mesial surface, mesial surface and lingual surface P0.05 no significant different was observed between other surface.
Conclusion: Marginal discrepancy at the shoulder design is more than chamfer design and the T test was shown significant marginal gap in shoulder design preparation versus chamfer design preparation. 
Please cite this paper as:
Comparison of the Marginal Fitness of Feldespatic all Ceramic Crowns with Two Finish Lines (Chamfer and Shoulder) Fabricated by CAD/CAM System. Jundishapur Sci Med J 2017;16(1):81-89


1-Karatasli O, Kursoglu P, Capa N.  Comparison of the marginal fit of different coping materials & designs producted by CAM systems. Dent Mater  2011; 26: 520-5.
2-Hyun-soon Pak, Jung-Suk Han.  Influence of porcelain veneering on the marginal fit of Digident & Lava CAD/CAM zirconia ceramic crowns.  J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2:33-38.
3-Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, et al.  A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater 2009;28(1):44-56.
4-www. Inlab. Com/ ecomaxl/ CEREC-BLOCK –Instructions. Pdf.
5-Sakaguchi RL,Powers JM. Craig ̓s Restorative Dental Materials.13ᵗ ͪ ed.philadelphia: Mosby;2012.
6-shilingburg HT, Sther DA, Wilson EL, Cain JR,  et al. Fundamentals Of Fixed Prosthodontics;2012.
7-Summit JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS.Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry.3th ed.chicago: Quintessence;2006.
8-Futoshi Komine, Takayuki,IWIA, Kazhisa KOBAYASHI. Marginal and internal Adaptation of Zirconium Dioxide ceramic coping and crowns with Different finish line Design. Dent Mater 2007; 26(5):659-664.
9-Borges GA, Faria JS, Agarwal P. in vitro marginal fit of three all –ceramic crown systems befor and after cementation. Oper Dent 2012; 37( 6):641-649.
10-McLean  JW, Fraunhofer JA von.The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br  Dent J 1971;131(3):107-111.
11-Holmes JR, Sulik WD, Holland GA, et al. Marginal fit of castable ceramic crowns.  J Prost het Dent 1992; 67(5):594-599.
12-Sulaiman J, Chai LM, Jameson WT, et al. A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1997; 10(5):478-484.
13-Suarez MJ, Gonzalez de villaumbrosia P, Pradies G. Comparison of the marginal fit of procera all ceram crownwith two finish lines. Int J Prosthodont  2003; 16(3):229-32.

14-Vojdani M, Safari A, Mohaghegh M , et al. The Effect of Porcelain Firing and Type of FinishLine on the Marginal Fit of Zirconia Copings. J Dent (shiraz)2015;16(2):113-120.

15-Komine F, Iwai T, Kobayashi K, et al. Marginal and internal adaptation of zirconium dioxide ceramic copings and crowns with different finish line designes. Dent Mater J 2007;26(5):659-64.
16-Jalalian E, Keshavarzi G. Comparison of Heavy Chamfer and Shoulder Finish line Designs on Marginal Adaptation of All-ceramic IPS e.max press Restorations. J Dent Res 2005; 5(3):53-57.

17-Demir N, Ozturk AN, Malkoc MA. Evaluation of the marginal fit of full ceramic crowns by the microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) technique. Eur J Dent 2014;8(4):437-444.

18-Subasi G, Ozturk N. Evaluation of marginal fit of two all-ceramic copings with two finish lines. Eur J Dent 2012;6(8):163-168.
19-Quintas AF, Oliveira F, Bottino MA. Vertical marginal discrepancy of ceramic copings with different ceramic materials, finish lines, and luting agents: an in vitro evaluation. .  J Prost het Dent  2004;92(3):250-257.
20-Souza Ro, Ozcan M, Pavanelli CA, Busol. Marginal and internal discrepancies related to margin design of ceramic crowns fabricated by a CAD/CAM system.  J Prost het Dent 2012;21(2):94-100.
21-Pera P, Gilodis,Bassi F, Carossas.In vitro marginal adaptation of alumina Porcelain ceramic crowns.  J Prost het Dent 1994;72:585-590.
22-Naert I, Van der Donck A, Beckers L. Precision of fit and clinical evaluation of all-ceramic full restorations followed between 0.5 and 5 years. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32(1):51-57.
23-Smith BG. The effect of the surface roughness of prepared dentin on the retention of castings.   J Prost het Dent 1970;23(2):187-198.