Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Fracture Strength of Different Ceramic Inlays Produced by CEREC Omnicam and Heat-Pressed Technique
Table 1
Results of the mean marginal gap. Standard deviation (SD) of the impression methods evaluated at each surface and overall mean marginal gap and SD of each impression method
Groups ()
Inlay surface
Mean marginal gap (µm)
Standard deviation (SD)
Overall mean marginal gap
Standard deviation (SD)
EC
Mesial
32.81
16.74
33.54a
15.83
IPS e.max CAD
Distal
36.05
20.54
CEREC Omnicam
Occlusobuccal
32.69
12.69
Occlusolingual
32.60
12.15
LU
Mesial
30.55
19.80
33.77a
17.35
Lava ultimate
Distal
29.11
18.92
CEREC Omnicam
Occlusobuccal
38.48
15.97
Occlusolingual
36.93
12.44
EL
Mesial
32.71
18.94
34.23a
17.67
IPS empress CAD
Distal
31.94
18.51
CEREC Omnicam
Occlusobuccal
36.82
17.22
Occlusolingual
35.45
16.03
EP
Mesial
88.64
37.51
85.34b
38.19
IPS empress esthetic
Distal
86.80
44.29
CEREC Omnicam
Occlusobuccal
84.16
32.67
Occlusolingual
81.78
38.35
Values with the same superscript letter are not significantly different (). aSame superscript letters in same column indicates no significant difference (). bDifferent superscript letters in same column indicates significant difference ().
