We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 25 (1994), No. 11     1. Nov. 1994
Quintessence Int 25 (1994), No. 11  (01.11.1994)

Page 773-779

Where is the gap? Machinable ceramic systems and conventional laboratory restorations at a glance
Siervo / Pampalone / Siervo / Siervo
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.