Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-02-21, 16:08:16 | version 1.38.0
literature review _ CAD/CAM material and systems Materials and systems for all ceramic CAD/CAM resto- rations: a review of the literature Authors_Drs Christian Brenes, Ibrahim Duqum & Gustavo Mendonza, USA _Introduction Dental crowns have been used for decades to restore compromised, heavily restored teeth, and for aesthetic improvements. New CAD/CAM (Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manu- facturing) materials and systems have been de- veloped and evolved in the last decade for fab- rication of all-ceramic restorations. Dental CAD/ CAM technology is gaining popularity because of its benefi ts in terms of time consuming, ma- terials 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 benefi t of CAD/CAM dentistry includes the use of new materials and data acquisition, which represents a non-destruc- tive method of saving impressions, restorations and information that is saved in a computer and constitutes an extraordinary 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’ fi t, quality, accuracy, short and long- term prognosis.1 The purpose of this document is to provide a review of the literature regarding the different materials and systems available up until 2015 in the USA. _CAD/CAM materials _Glass ceramics The fi rst in-offi ce ceramic material was Vita- block 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, the next generation of materi- als for CAD/CAM milling fabrication of all-ceramic restorations were Vita Mark II (Vident) and Cel- ay, which replaced the original Mark I in 1987 for fi ne feldspathic porcelains primarily composed of silica oxide and aluminum oxide.2,3 Mark II blocks are fabricated from feldspathic porcelain particles embedded in a glass matrix and used for single unit restorations available in polychromatic blanks nowadays. On the other hand, Celay ceramic in- lays have been considered clinically acceptable by traditional criteria for marginal fi t evaluation.4 Dicor-MGC was a glass ceramic material com- posed of 70 percent tetrasilicic fl uormica 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 years of clinical service.6-8 In 1997, Paradigma MZ100 blocks (3M ESPE) were introduced as a highly fi lled ultrafi ne silica ceram- ic 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 po- lymerisation shrinkage but can not be sintered or glazed.9 In early 1998, IPS ProCAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) was introduced as a leucite reinforced ceramic, which was similar to IPS Empress but with a fi ner particle size; this material was designed to be use with the CEREC system (Sirona Dental) and was available in different shades.2 More recently, the introduction of IPS Em- press CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Paradigm C that according to the manufacturer (3M ESPE) is a 30 16 cosmetic dentistry 1_2017