Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different preparation depths (0, 2 and 4 mm) of different restoration designs (classic endocrown design versus overlay design) on marginal adaptation of restorations fabricated of two different restorative materials (lithium disilicate and PEEK). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty mandibular natural molars were collected as abutments for the restorations of this study, and grouped in three main groups of different cavity depths (0, 2 and 4). Each group was divided into two subgroups according to material of fabrication to (L) for lithium disilicate (IPS emax CAD, Ivoclar vivadent, Switzarland) and (P) for PEEK (Bio-hpp, Bredent, Germany). CAD/CAM milling technology was used for fabrication of restorations. After cementation of restorations over abutments, hydrothermal aging was performed, and then marginal adaptation was evaluated via micro CT technology. RESULTS: Regarding cavity depths, there was a significant difference between different groups (p < 0.001). The highest value was found in samples with 4 mm extension (84.35 ± 18.16), followed by samples with 2 mm extension (66.52 ± 21.86), while the lowest value was found in samples without pulpal extension (59.41 ± 22.16). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed samples with 4 mm extension to have a significantly higher value than samples without extension (p < 0.001). Regarding materials of fabrication, PEEK (85.32 ± 12.37) had a significantly higher value than Emax (54.86 ± 20.86) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing intrapulpal cavity depths increases vertical marginal gap of lithium disilicate or PEEK restorations. Endocrowns fabricated of lithium disilicate show less marginal discrepancies than that of endocrowns fabricated of PEEK.