SYSTEM; TIZED PROCEDURE OF CROWN PREPARATION

plane of preparation at a time. This technique accom- 8. Ohm E, Silness J. The convergence angle in teeth prepared for artificial
crowns. J Oral Rehabil 1978;5:371-5.
plishes the tooth preparation more rapidly, with a reliable, 9. Jorgensen KD, Finger W. Die-spacing technique by &fusion precipita
predictable standard of excellence. tion. Stand J Dent Res 1979;87:73-8.
10. Jorge” D. Efficient and high-quality cavity preparation ergonomy
REFERENCES preparation sets. Lemgo. West Germany:Gehr Rrasseier Gmhh & Co
KG, 1981;4.
1. Thayer KE. Fixed prosthodontics. Chicago: Year Book Medical Pub- 11. Felton BA, Kanoy BE, White JT. Surface roughness of crown prepara-
lishers, 1984;31-6. tion: effect on cemented casting retention [Ahs~ract]. J Dent Ree
2. Rosenteil E. The taper of inlay and crown preparations. Br Dent J 1986;65:312.
1975;139:436-8. 12. Craig RG. Restorative dental materials. St T,ctws: CV Mosbv Co,
3. Abdullah SI, Mohammed H, Thayer KE. Factors in the failure of 1980;203.
cemented full crowns. J Can Dent Assoc 1974;40:721-4. 13. G&art E. The Rio-set will make things a lot easier r’or vou. Dusseldorf,
4. Woolsey GD, Matich IA. The effect of axial grooves on the resistance West Germany: Hager & Meisinger Gmbh. 1985.
form of cast restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1978;97:978-80.
5. Mack PI. A theoretical and clinical investigation into the taper achieved Reprint requests to-
on crown and inlay preparations. J Oral Rehabil 1980,7:255-65. DR. M. C. KAFALIAS
6. Hyde PF. The mechanical principles of cavity preparation for the cast UNITED DENTAL HOSPITAL
gold restoration [M.D.S. thesis]. Sydney: University of Sydney, 1984. UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
7. Shillingburg HT Jr, Hobo S, Whitsett LD. Fundamentals of fixed 2 CHALMERS ST.
prosthodontics. 2nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co, 1981;79- SYDNEY 2010
83. AUSTRALIA

Considerations in measurement of marginal fit

J. Robert Holmes, D.D.S., M.S., M.Ed.,* Stephen C. Bayne, M.S., Ph.D.,**
Gene A. Holland, D.D.S., M.S.,*** and William D. Sulik, D.D.S., M.S.****
Medical University of South Carolina, College of Dental Medicine, Charleston, SC., and
University of North Carolina, School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill, N.C.

The terminology describing “fit” and the techniques used for measuring fit vary
considerably in the literature. Although fit can be most easily defined in terms of
“misfit,” there are many different locations between a tooth and a restoration
where the measurements can be made. In this work, the measurements of misfit at
different locations are geometrically related to each other and defined as internal
gap, marginal gap, vertical marginal discrepancy, horizontal marginal discrepancy,
overextended margin, underextended margin, absolute marginal discrepancy, and
seating discrepancy. The signiicance and difference in magnitude of different
locations are presented. The best alternative is perhaps the absolute marginal
discrepancy, which would always be the largest measurement of error at the
margin and would reflect the total mislit at that point. (J PROSTHET DENT
1989;62:406-8.)

The marginal “fit” of any dental restoration is vi-
tal to its long-term success. Lack of adequate fit is poten-
tially detrimental to both the tooth and the supporting pe-
riodontal tissues. Unlike physical and mechanical proper-
ties of materials, the fit of a restoration has never been
strictly defined. The reference points for measurements
*Assistant Professor, Department of Crown and Bridge, Medical
University of South Carolina, College of Dental Medicine.
**Associate Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Uni-
versity of North Carolina, School of Dentistry.
***Professor, Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, University of
North Carolina, School of,Dentistry.
****Part-time Associate Professor, Department of Fixed Prosth-
odontics, University of North Carolina, School of Dentistry.
10/l/12238
and the discriptive terminology defining fit vary consider-
ably among investigators. Often the same term is used to
refer to different measurements, or different terms are used
to refer to the same measurement. This is a constant source
of confusion in reporting and comparing studies.
Studies have reported measurement of fit relative to
marginal adaptation, lW3internal adaptation,*? 6 vertical
seating,6-E radiographic appearance,g and clinical adapt-
ability as judged by experienced practitioners.eT lo Two
common techniques are measurement of embedded and
sectioned specimens,ly 11,l2 and measurement of specimens
(or their replicas) by direct visuahzation?*13 Mechanical
devices, such as the tracing jig14 to measure relative distor-
tion at the margin during porcelain firing cycles, have also
been used frequently. Several studiessp l5 have evaluated fit

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 405


\ Underextended
Tooth
Fig. 1. Casting misfit terminology.
as a percentage oversize or undersize of castings, whereas
Christensen9 and otherslo? l3 have used rating scales. Kay
et aLi6 have eliminated the laboratory phase of fit evalua-
tion with the use of a computer simulation study to ana-
lyze the effects of preparation design, die relief, and cemen-
tation factors. Each method has different advantages
and provides a unique insight into the elusive parameter of
fit.
Studies concerning preparation design, marginal config-
uration, marginal finishing, and cement thickness must ul-
timately address the question of fit to reach conclusions.
What constitutes an adequate fit has not been satisfac-
torily resolved in the literature, and each study attempting
to evaluate fit must establish its own definitions, then at-
tempt to draw conclusions based on those definitions. The
choice of terminology and definitions is often subjective
and unavoidably introduces the bias of the investigator.
The wide variety of terminology and definitions of fit in the
literature demonstrates the inherent difficulty in dealing
with this subject.
SUGGESTED TERMINOLOGY
The fit of a casting can be defined best in terms of the
“misfit” measured at various points between the casting
surface and the tooth. Measurements between the castings
and the tooth can be made from points along the internal
HOLMES ET AL
P. INTERNALCAP
b. MARGINAL GAP
VERTICAL MARCWAL DISCREPASCV
HORIZOSTAL MARGINAL DISCRBPASC,
ABSOLUTE MARGINAL DISCREPAWV
surface, at the margin, or on the external surface of the
casting. The various types of measurements are illustrated
in Fig. 1 and defined to clarify each term.
The perpendicular measurement from the internal sur-
face of the casting to the axial wall of the preparation is
called the internal gap, and the same measurement at the
margin is called the marginal gap. The vertical marginal
misfit measured parallel to the path of draw of the casting
is called the vertical marginal discrepancy. The horizon-
tal marginal misfit measured perpendicular to the path of
draw of the casting is called the horizontal marginal dis-
crepancy. There is also the possibility of overextended or
underextended casting margins. An overextended margin
is the perpendicular distance from the marginal gap to the
casting margin. An underextended margin is the perpen-
dicular distance from the marginal gap to the cavosurface
angle of the tooth. The angular combination of the mar-
ginal gap and the extension error (overextension or under-
extension) is called the absolute marginal discrepancy.
Specifically it is the hypotenuse of a right triangle with
sides defined as the overextended (or underextended)
margin and the marginal gap. The angular combination of
the vertical marginal discrepancy and the horizontal mar-
ginal discrepancy also defines this same absolute marginal
discrepancy. It is the same hypotenuse, but of a different
right triangle, with sides defined as the vertical marginal
OCTOBER 1989 VOLUME 82 NUMBER 4
MEASUREMENT OF MARGINAL FIT

discrepancy and the horizontal marginal discrepancy. The

absolute marginal discrepancy is measured from the mar-
gin of the casting to the cavosurface angle of the prepara-
tion. When no overextension or underextension is present,
the absolute marginal discrepancy is the same as the mar-
ginal gap. When no marginal gap is present, the absolute
\ NO MARGINAL GAP ICLOSED)
marginal discrepancy is the same as the overextension or NO OVEREXTENSION
NO UNDEREXTENSION
underextension. Lack of seating of a casting as measured \
perpendicular to the path of draw by an arbitrary point (or
points) on the external surface of the casting and tooth
away from the margin is called the seating discrepancy.

DISCUSSION
If marginal misfit is viewed as a combination of gap er-
ror and extension error, a finite number of possible types
of misfit exists (Fig. 2). Each of these six categories of mar- MARGINAL GAP (OPEN) MARGINAL GAP (OPE\l
ginal misfit can be defined in terms of the terminology sug- OVEREXTENSION 1 hUEREXTENSlON

gested here and would pertain to any marginal configura-

tion (slice, beveled-shoulder, chamfer, or shoulder). In a
perfectly fit casting, the casting margin and the cavosurface
angle of the tooth would coincide (or perhaps more accu-
rately described, be touching side by side). The absolute
marginal discrepancy would always be the largest mea-
surement of error at the margin and would reflect the total
misfit at that point. Any other measurement of fit might
obscure part of the true marginal discrepancy that was ac- NO MARGINALGAP [CLOSEDI
tually present. OVEREXTENSION

For example, seating discrepancy could be considered by

some to be the most critical measurement (due among
other things to the effect on occlusion), but this would not
necessarily be reflected as the same vertical discrepancy at
the margins. Likewise, it could be argued that marginal gap
dimension is most critical (because of solubility of cements),
but this would still leave unresolved the question of over-
extended or underextended margins. A marginal gap di-
mension of zero might still represent a poor fit with respect
to the casting. For example, a grossly overextended casting
that touched the cavosurface angle of the preparation
would represent a perfect fit relative to marginal gap
dimension. Although the margin would be closed (which is
desirable), plaque retention and the effect on the gingival
tissue would be detrimental. On the other hand, a casting
that was underextended an equal amount might also have
a marginal gap dimension of zero but be far less damaging
t,o tissue, not accumulate as much plaque, and be deemed
a better fit.
Even when questions concerning exactly what dimension
to measure are resolved and a method is chosen to do so,
confusion over terminology complicates an analysis of re-
search data further. For example Cooney and Caputo,7
Plekavich and Joncas,l’ and Faull et a1.17in three separate
studies all reported mean marginal opening values, but
closer examination of their measurement approaches re-
vealed that they were in reality measuring different things.
Using the definitions and terminology suggested, Cooney
and CaputoT measured vertical marginal discrepancy,
Fig. 2. Types of marginal misiit.
Plekavich and Joncasl’ measured absolute marginal dis-
crepancy (though one of their diagrams indicated mea-
surement of vertical marginal discrepancy), and Faull et
a1.17measured the marginal gap. Although the varying ap-
proaches (and terminology) are neither right nor wrong, it
is difficult to make direct comparisons between these
studies. As is obvious from the geometry of the diagram in
Fig. 1, the absolute marginal discrepancy will always be
greater than (or equal to) the vertical marginal discrepancy
or marginal gap. In such a situation, fit values that would
at first appear to be comparable might in reality be quite
different. Indeed, in the study by Cooney and Caputo7 (as
the authors readily acknowledged) some castings appeared
to be oversized and seated beyond the margin. This led to
the appearance of an excellent fit, but did not address the
problem of overextended margins.
SUMMARY
Future studies will undoubtedly continue to measure fit
in a variety of ways. The results of such studies can only be
interpreted relative to the specific method used to measure
misfit. Although standardization of misfit measurement is
probably not possible, clarification of terminology is nec-
essary for consistency. The terminology suggested here
should serve as a starting point in that effort,.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 407

 HOLMESETAL

REFERENCES
1. Chan C, Harassthy G, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Weber H. The marginal fit of
Cerestore full-ceramic crowns-a preliminary report. Quintessence Int
1985;16:399-402.
2. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Fisher DW. Preparation design and margin
distortion in porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations. J PROSTHET DENT
1973;29:276-84.
3. Hamaguchi H, Cacciatore A, Tueller VM. Marginal distortion of the
porcelain-bonded-to-metal complete crown: an SEM study. J PROS-
THET DENT 1982;47:146-53.
4. Fit of Dicer castable ceramic crowns. Dicer Research Report York, Pa:
Dentsply International, 1986;2:1-2.
5. Strating H, Pameijer CH, Gildenhuys, RR. Evaluation of the marginal
integrity of ceramometal restorations. Part I. J PROSTHET DENT 1981;
46:59-65.
6. Van Rensburg F, Strating H. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of
ceramometal restorations: Part II. J PROSTHET DENT 1984;52:210-4.
7. Cooney JP, Caputo AA. Type III gold alloy complete crowns cast in a
phosphate-bonded investment. J PROSTHET DENT 1981;46:414-9.
8. Eden GT, Franklin OM, Powell JM, Ohta Y, Dickson G. Fit of porce-
lain fused-to-metal crown and bridge castings. J Dent Res 1979;58:
2360-8.
9. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J PROSTHET DENT
1966;16:297-305.
10. Merchant VA, Herrera SP, Dwan JJ. Marginal fit of cast gold MO in-
lays from disinfected elastomeric impressions. J PROSTHET DENT
1987;58:276-80.
11. Plekavich EJ, Joncas JM. The effect of impression-die systems on crown
margins. J PROSTHET DENT 1983;49:772-6.
12. Gavelis JR, Morency JD, Riley ED, Sozio RB. The effect of various
finish line preparations on the marginal seal and occlusion seat of full
crown preparations. J PROSTHET DENT 1981;45:138-45.
13. Sarrett DC, Richeson JS, Smith GE. Scanning electron microscopy
evaluation of four finishing techniques on margins of gold castings.
J PROSTHET DENT 1983;50:784-92.
14. Faucher RR, Nicholls JI. Distortion related to margin design in porce-
lain-fused-to-metal restorations. J PROSTHET DENT 1980;43:149-55.
15. Adair PJ, Hoekstra KE. Fit evaluation of a castable ceramic. J Dent Res
1982;61:345.
16. Kay GW, Jablonski DA, Dogon IL. Factors affectingthe seatingand fit
of complete crowns: a computer simulation study. J PROSTHET DENT
1986;55:13-8.
17. Faull TW, Hesby RA, Pelleu GB, Ear&wood GW. Marginal opening of
single and twin platinum foil-bonded aluminous porcelain crowns.
J PROSTHET DENT 1985;53:29-33.
Reprint requests to:
DR. J. ROBERT HOLMES
MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLLEGE OF DENTAL MEDICINE
171 ASHLEY AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29425

Leakage of chemical and light-cured basing materials

Kai Chiu Chan, D.D.S., M.S.,* and Edward J. Swift, Jr., D.M.D.**
University of Iowa, College of Dentistry, Iowa City, Iowa

This study investigated the sealing properties of chemical and light-cured basing
materials in dentin. Fifty extracted molars were selected and cleaned. Slot prepa-
rations with standard dimensions were made. The prepared cavities were filled
with Cavitec, Life, Ketac-Bond, VLC Dycal, and Cavalite materials. Samples were
immersed in 0.05% crystal violet solution for 2 hours. The samples were then
embedded in clear casting resin, sectioned, and examined with a microscope.
Results indicated that Cavalite and Ketac-Bond materials allow a greater degree
of dye penetration that the three other materials. Cavitec, VLC Dycal, and Life
materials were similar to each other in degree of dye penetration. (J PROSTEIET
DENT 1989;62:408-11.)

Basesare placed in deep cavities to protect the pulp
tissue from physical, chemical, and bacterial irritation.
Robbins’ reported that, for maximum pulpal protection,
bases are indicated under restorations that extend into the
dentin. Different types of basing materials are available
with varying compositions and curing mechanisms. There-
fore, physical properties such as surface hardness, rate of
shrinkage, rate of water absorption, and solubility may be
different for each basing material.
The sealing property of a basing material is one of the
*Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry.
**Clinical Instructor, Department of Operative Dentistry.
10/l/12236
important criteria determining success or failure of a base.
Cox et a1.2stated that bacterial leakage under restorations?
is the primary cause of pulpal irritation. They further in-
dicated that healing of dental pulp exposures is not depen-
dent on the effect of a particular type of medicament but
on the capacity of the capping material to prevent bacte-
rial leakage.
This study investigated the sealing properties of thee
chemically and light-cured basing materials in dentin cav-
ities without the protection of other restorative materials
or enamel margins.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Fifty noncarious extracted molars were selected and,
thoroughly cleaned. Fingernail polish was used to cover the

408 OCTOBER1989 VOLUME62 NUMBER4