<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate and compare the internal and marginal adaptations of chairside CAD/CAM (CEREC) endocrowns and crowns fabricated from lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic (VITA Suprinity), and hybrid ceramic (VITA Enamic).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Dental models of the two first maxillary molars were selected. One was prepared for an endocrown, and the other for a standard all-ceramic crown. A total of 72 CAD/CAM restorations, including 36 endocrowns and 36 crowns made of IPS e.max CAD, VITA Suprinity, and VITA Enamic (n = 12 each), were fabricated. Discrepancies were measured in the buccal, mesial, lingual, and distal aspects of three sites (marginal, mid-axial wall, and occlusal/floor) using the noncontact ATOS scanner. Statistical analysis was performed using MANOVA and between-subject effects tests (α = .05).<h4>Results</h4>Mesial axial wall discrepancy was significantly lower in endocrowns compared to occlusal discrepancy in crowns, while distal axial wall discrepancy was significantly higher. Moreover, floor discrepancy was found to be significantly lower in endocrowns compared to crowns. However, type of material had no significant effect on any kind of discrepancy.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The marginal and internal adaptation values were within a clinically acceptable range for both kinds of restoration and all three materials. However, restoration type (crown vs endocrown) was significantly different in the mesial and distal axial wall and occlusal/floor discrepancies, regardless of restoration material.
Int J Prosthodont (The International journal of prosthodontics)
Cited: 2 times