Home Subscription Services

Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

November 1994
Volume 25 , Issue 11

Share Abstract:

Where is the gap? Machinable ceramic systems and conventional laboratory restorations at a glance


Pages: 773-779
PMID: 7568682

Scanning electron microscopy was used to compare the marginal gaps of restorations milled by machinable ceramic systems to the marginal gaps of conventional laboratory-sintered ceramic restorations. For occlusal surfaces, the average marginal gap was 80 um for both laborato ry- and Celay-produced inlays. The mean gap was 200 um and 170 um, respectively, for Cerec T (turbine motor) and Cerec EM (electric motor) inlays. For approximal boxes, the average marginal gap was 100 um for inlays produced with conventional laboratory-sintering techniques, 80 um for Celay restorations, and 280 um for the Cerec T restorations, and 260 um for Cerec EM-machined inlays. The ceramics used, as well as the different systems themselves, can influence the results and the clinical outcome of the restorations.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog