![cad cam machine dental cad cam machine dental](https://cdn.w600.comps.canstockphoto.com/cadcam-dental-computer-aided-machine-stock-image_csp35834762.jpg)
For each group of teeth, the intra-oral camera was calibrated using the Sirona camera calibration kit.
Cad cam machine dental software#
Technical differences between these two machines are listed in Table 1.Ī Cerec AC unit with Bluecam (Sirona) equipped with Microsoft Windows 7-64 bits (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) that run the Cerec software version 4.3 (Sirona) was used in this study. These are control group (G1): Cerec 3 Milling unit (Cerec3) and ii) Cerec MC XL Premium Package milling unit (MCXLPP) (Fig. Teeth were then randomly assigned to two groups (n=8). A new set of diamond points was used for every four prepared teeth.
![cad cam machine dental cad cam machine dental](https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1gdJOKFXXXXc5XpXXq6xXFXXXQ/Dental-Milling-Machine-5-Axis-Dental-Plus-M5-cad-cam-solution-cnc-machining-dry-mill-open.jpg)
All preparations had 0.5mm supragingival margins and they were prepared by one investigator. The gingival margin was then finished with a flat end diamond point (014 FG medium flat end taper diamond - Brasseler), resulting in a 1.0mm width circumferential flat shoulder. The preparations were made using cone-shape diamond points (016 FG medium round end taper diamond) followed by a finishing diamond point with the same shape (Brasseler, Savannah, GA, USA). A flat 90o shoulder margin design was used for all preparations. The upper left second pre-molars typodont teeth received a full-contour crown preparation for Cerec with 6-8o degrees of axial wall conversion, 1.0mm axial reduction, and a 2.0 mm flat occlusal reduction on both functional and non-functional cusps. Sixteen maxillary typodonts (Kilgore typodont model 200 – Kilgore International, Coldwater, MI, USA) with unrestored and intact teeth were used in this study. This study was approved by an ethics committee. First, we determined whether the marginal fit would be affected by the different milling unit used, and second, we examined if the different regions of the tooth (mesial and distal) differ in terms of marginal fit, regardless of the milling unit used. The present study was designed to compare and evaluate the marginal fit of ceramic CAD/CAM ceramic restorations produced with the Cerec AC using BlueCam and milled with different Cerec milling generations: i) Cerec 3 Milling unit (Cerec3) and ii) Cerec MC XL Premium Package (MCXLPP) milling unit. Margin discrepancies beyond 100µm may impact the survival rate by causing microleakage, staining, tooth sensitivity, recurrent caries, periodontal problems, and ultimately failure of the entire restoration ( 13, 14). Margin quality has been described as one of the most important aspects when comes to longevity of CAD/CAM ceramic restorations ( 5- 12). Because the technology is costly, some clinicians are still using previous generations of CAD/CAM equipment to fabricate and delivery intraoral restorations. These restorations, commonly made with ceramic material, are becoming increasingly popular worldwide ( 1- 4).