PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to gather, compare, and appraise studies that attempted to determine the biological and mechanical tolerance of misfits.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The review protocol was published in the Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42021268399) and follows the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search was conducted through PubMed, Ebscohost, and Web of Science followed by a manual search up to December 2021.
RESULTS: A total of 413 manuscripts were identified by electronic and manual search. After removing duplicates, nonrelevant titles, and abstract screening, 62 manuscripts were eligible for full-text assessment. Finally, a total of 13 articles (1 cross-sectional study, 1 retrospective and prospective, 7 in vitro studies, and 4 animal studies) met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. A wide range of tolerable misfits were reported. Vertical misfit up to 1 mm and horizontal misfit up to 345 μm were associated with no adverse outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The current literature provides inadequate data to determine a clinical threshold of an acceptable misfit. However, this review demonstrated that the mechanical response to misfit is more critical than the biological response.
METHODS: Thirty-six mandibular premolar teeth with an average surface area of 64.49 mm2 were prepared to receive CAM/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Samples were divided randomly and equally into groups of lithium disilicate with 2 mm intracoronal depth (LD2), lithium disilicate with 4 mm intracoronal depth (LD4), polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 2 mm intracoronal depth (PICN2) and polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 4 mm intracoronal depth (PICN4). All endocrowns were cemented using ParaCore resin cement with 14N pressure and cured for 20 seconds. Fifty measurements of absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were done using a stereomicroscope after cementation. After 24 hours, all samples were subjected to thermocycling before the retention test. This involved using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and applying a load of 500N. The maximum force to detach the crown was recorded in newtons and the mode of failure was identified.
RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA revealed that the AMD for PICN was statistically significantly better than lithium disilicate (p=0.01). No statistically significant difference was detected in the AMD between the two intracoronal depths (p=0.72). PICN and endocrowns with 4 mm intracoronal depth had statistically significant better retention (p<0.05). 72.22% of the sample suffered from cohesive failures and 10 LD endocrowns suffered adhesive failures.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we found that different materials and intracoronal depths can indeed influence the retention of CAD/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Based on the controlled setting findings, PICN was found to have better retention and better marginal adaptation than similar lithium disilicate premolar endocrowns.