Impact of Occlusal Intercuspal Angulation on the Quality of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Abstract

PURPOSE: Modification of intercuspal angulation (ICA) influences the amount of tooth structure removal, which may impact the retention and resistance form of the preparation. This study evaluated the impact of ICA on the marginal gap of CAD/CAM crowns and the influence that tooth structure removal, caused by variation of ICA, has on the resistance and retention form of the preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty ivorine molars were manufactured with various ICAs (100°, 110°, 120°, 140°, 160°, and 180°; 10 per group). The preparations were digitized using an intraoral scanner, and the crowns were designed using a design software. The designed crowns were then manufactured from lithium disilicate using a 3-axis milling machine, with the "detailed mode" selected for the manufacturing. The marginal gap of each crown was evaluated using a stereomicroscope at 20× magnification. Then, the marginal integrity and the resistance form of the preparation were assessed by tactile-visual evaluation, and they were given a categorical score. Crowns were then secured on their associated preparations using a temporary luting agent, and retention force was measured on a universal testing machine under tension with a 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Wilcoxon test followed by post-hoc tests (α = 0.05) were used to evaluate the impact of the ICA on the marginal gap and the retention form of the preparation. Fisher's exact test followed by post-hoc tests (α = 0.05) were used to assess the impact of the occlusal preparation design on the marginal integrity and the resistance form of the preparation. RESULTS: The marginal gap was significantly larger for ICA-180 preparations (72 μm), compared to the other groups (ICA-180 vs ICA-100, ICA-110, ICA-120, and ICA-160 p = 0.0001; ICA-180 vs. ICA-140 p = 0.0017). None of the crowns for ICA-180 preparations had clinically acceptable resistance form. Preparations with ICAs of 100°, 110°, and 120° had a significantly higher value of retention than the other groups (ICA-100 vs. ICA-120 p = 0.0119; ICA-100 vs. ICA-140, ICA-160, and ICA-180 p < 0.0001; ICA-110 vs. ICA-140, ICA-160, and ICA-180 p = 0.0001; ICA-120 vs. ICA-180 p = 0.0017). CONCLUSIONS: Crowns fabricated for preparations with various ICAs had clinically acceptable marginal adaptation. Variation in ICA impacts the loss of tooth structure. This loss of tooth structure may influence the resistance and retention form of the preparation.