Final presentation #

543 views
420 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
543
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Final presentation #

  1. 1. Acceptable esthetic outcome. The high strength. The familiar techniques.
  2. 2. Some allergic reactions of the metal alloys. Gingival discoloration around the metal margins.
  3. 3. YPS zirconia is ceramic material that cannot be processed in to shapes without the use of milling techniques. Therefore, the development of high strength all ceramic core materials such as ytrrium partially stabilized(YPS) zirconia was mandatory
  4. 4. CAD/CAM. MAD/MAM.  Zero.  30 µm.  60 µm.
  5. 5.  For CAD /CAM technique: pre-sintered YPS zirconia blocks “VITA In-Ceram 2000 YZ” for crowns.
  6. 6.  For MAD/MAM technique: Zirkonzahn system was used for the manual aided designing and the manual aided milling of green YPS zirconia blocks (36 x 75 mm).
  7. 7. I-CAD/CAM (15) a-Zero (5) b-30µm. (5) c-60µm. (5) II-MAD/MAM (15) a-Zero (5) b-30µm. (5) c-60µm. (5)
  8. 8. For MAD/MAM technique, another 2 Stainless Steel dies were machined with the same criteria as the main master die but with increased diameters and heights to compensate for the application of the die spacer.
  9. 9. • A Laser visible stone die. • For CAD/CAM An impression of the main master die. • 3 stone dies. • For MAD/MAM Three impressions of the three steel dies. • 30 epoxy dies. • For measurements. Thirty impressions of the main master die .
  10. 10. I) CAD/CAM technique (CEREC inLab):
  11. 11. Insertion axis. Margin placement. Coping thickness (0.5 mm). The cement space.
  12. 12. Milling preview
  13. 13. MC XL unit Cylinder bur 20 Step bur 20
  14. 14.  Finally, sintering of the copings were carried out using the Zirkonofen 600 sintering oven according to the manufacturer recommendations: -Final temperature [°C]: 1500 -Heating period [h] (von RT): ~3h (~ 8°C/min) -Cool down Time: 4°C/min, down to 800°C.
  15. 15. Stereomicrograph of MAD/MAM coping. Stereomicrograph after automatic correction of brightness and contrast. Stereomicrograph after conversion in to 8- bit monochrome image for detection of grey scale of the vertical gap. Binary threshold of the coded areas was done prior to calculation of vertical gap distance
  16. 16. Surface treatment. Mixing and cementation using glass ionomer cement. Loading .
  17. 17. 9- Postcementation measurements of the cervical vertical marginal discrepancies.
  18. 18. Using Graphpad Prism-4 statistics software: T-test analysis was carried out between milling techniques as function of cement spaces before/after cementation and seating discrepancy. One way analysis of variance ANOVA was used to examine effects of different cement spaces on the marginal accuracy. P values ≤ 0.05 are considered to be statistically significant in all tests.
  19. 19. I-Effect of milling technique regardless of the cement space: a- Before cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 81.04 84 Totalmarginalgap(µm)
  20. 20. b- After cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 102.4 99.54 Totalmarginalgap(µm)
  21. 21. c-Seating discrepancy: 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 20.96 15.57 Totaldiscrepancy(µm)
  22. 22. II-Effect of milling technique regarding cement space zero: a- Before cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 86.95 91.93 Marginalgap(µm)
  23. 23. b- After cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 109.4 103.4 Marginalgap(µm)
  24. 24. c- Seating discrepancy: 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 21.25 11.53 Discrepancy(µm)
  25. 25. II-Effect of milling technique regarding cement space 30 µm: a- Before cementation: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 85.61 84.66 Marginalgap(µm)
  26. 26. b- After cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 107 100 Marginalgap(µm)
  27. 27. c- Seating discrepancy: 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 21.39 15.37
  28. 28. III-Effect of milling technique regarding cement space 60 µm: a- Before cementation: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 70.56 75.41 Marginalgap(µm)
  29. 29. b- After cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 90.8 95.22 Marginalgap(µm)
  30. 30. c- Seating discrepancy: 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cerec In-Lab Zirkon Zahn 20.23 19.81 Discrepancy(µm)
  31. 31. V-Effect of cement space on the marginal accuracy of CAD/CAM copings: a- Before cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 Space 0 Space 30 Space 60 86.95 85.61 70.56 Marginalgap(µm)
  32. 32. b- After cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Space 0 Space 30 Space 60 109.4 107 90.8 Marginalgap(µm)
  33. 33. C-Seating discrepancy: 0 5 10 15 20 25 Space 0 Space 30 Space 60 21.25 21.39 20.23 Discrepancy(µm)
  34. 34. IV-Effect of cement space on the marginal accuracy of MAD/MAM copings: a- Before cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 Space 0 Space 30 Space 60 91.93 84.66 75.41 Marginalgap(µm)
  35. 35. b- After cementation: 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Space 0 Space 30 Space 60 103.4 100 95.22 Marginalgap(µm)
  36. 36. c- Seating discrepancy: 0 5 10 15 20 Space 0 Space 30 Space 60 Zirkon Zahn 11.53 15.37 19.81 Discrepancy(µm)
  37. 37. The marginal fit of CAD/CAM YPS zirconia copings was not significantly different from the MAD/MAM YPS zirconia copings. The cement space had no influence on the marginal fit of all copings fabricated by both milling techniques. The cementation did not affect significantly the marginal seating. MAD/MAM copings with cement space 60 had the highest significant seating discrepancy mean value followed by cement space 30 and cement space zero.

×