Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2016-10-04, 09:33:57 | version 1.38.0
| literature review CAD/CAM material and systems 10 CAD/CAM 3 2016 Introduction Dental crowns have been used for decades to restore compromised, heavily restored teeth, and for aesthe- tic improvements. New CAD/CAM (Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing) materials and systems have been developed and evolved in the last decade for fabrication of all-ceramic restorations. Dental CAD/CAM technology is gaining popularity because of its benefits in terms of time consuming, materials savings, standardisation of the fabrication process, and predictability of the restorations. The number of steps required for the fabrication of a restoration is less compared to traditional methods (Fig 1). Another benefit of CAD/CAM dentistry in- cludes the use of new materials and data acquisition, whichrepresentsanon-destructivemethodofsaving impressions, restorations and information that is savedinacomputerandconstitutesanextraordinary communication tool for evaluation. The incorporation of dental technology has not only brought a new range of manufacturing methods and material options, but also some concerns about the processes involving restorations’ fit, quality, accu- racy, short and long-term prognosis.1 Thepurposeofthisdocumentistoprovideareviewof the literature regarding the different materials and systems available up until 2015 in the USA. CAD/CAM materials Glass ceramics The first in-office ceramic material was Vitablock Mark I (Vident); it was a feldspathic-based ceramic compressed into a block that was milled into a dental restoration. After the invention of the Mark I block, thenextgenerationofmaterialsforCAD/CAMmilling fabricationofall-ceramicrestorationswereVitaMarkII (Vident)andCelay,whichreplacedtheoriginalMarkI in1987forfinefeldspathicporcelainsprimarilycom- posed of silica oxide and aluminum oxide.2, 3 Mark II blocks are fabricated from feldspathic porcelain par- ticles embedded in a glass matrix and used for single unit restorations available in polychromatic blanks nowadays. On the other hand, Celay ceramic inlays have been considered clinically acceptable by tradi- tional criteria for marginal fit evaluation.4 Dicor-MGCwasaglassceramicmaterialcomposedof 70 percent tetrasilicic fluormica crystals precipitated in a glass matrix; but this material is no longer available on the market.5 Studies from Isenberg et al. suggested that inlays of this type of ceramics were judged as clinically successful in a range from 3–5 yearsofclinicalservice.6–8 In1997,ParadigmaMZ100 blocks (3M ESPE) were introduced as a highly filled ultrafine silica ceramic particles embedded in a resin matrix; the main advantage of this material is that it can be use as a milled dense composite that was free of polymerisation shrinkage but can not be sintered or glazed.9 In early 1998, IPS ProCAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) was introducedasaleucitereinforcedceramic,whichwas similar to IPS Empress but with a finer particle size; this material was designed to be use with the CEREC system (Sirona Dental) and was available in dif- ferent shades.2 More recently, the introduction of IPS Empress CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Paradigm C that according to the manufacturer (3M ESPE) is a 30to45percentleucitereinforcedglassceramicwith a fine particle size.10 Materials and systems for all ceramic CAD/CAM restorations A review of the literature Authors: Drs Christian Brenes, Ibrahim Duqum & Gustavo Mendonza, USA 32016