研究比较采用粉浆堆塑工艺、热压铸造工艺及计算机辅助设计与制作（CAD-CAM）技术制作的不同材料瓷嵌体的边缘适合性。

通过数控铣床制备有机玻璃模型30个，采用随机数字表法分为三组，每组10个，分别采用粉浆堆塑工艺制作In-Ceram Spinell嵌体（In-Ceram Spinel组），热压铸造工艺制作IPS e.max Press嵌体（IPS e.max Press组），CAD-CAM技术制作Cercon Zirconia嵌体（Cercon Zirconia组）。嵌体试件粘接完成，通过肉眼观察和扫描电镜（SEM）测量，记录并分析嵌体边缘微观形貌及嵌体与窝洞洞壁间的内间隙、边缘间隙和绝对边缘间隙，采用SAS软件进行统计学处理，组间两两比较采用LSD-t检验。

不同加工方式及材料的嵌体可获得肉眼可见的光滑表面。SEM下Cercon Zirconia组嵌体组织面最为平滑连续，边缘完整适合。测量所得各组的内间隙，In-Ceram Spinell组为（94 ± 41）μm、IPS e.max Press组为（64 ± 20）μm、Cercon Zirconia组为（72 ± 25）μm，均在临床可接受范围120 μm内；Cercon Zirconia组的边缘间隙[（100 ± 37）μm]和绝对边缘间隙[（119 ± 38）μm]均在120 μm以内。各组边缘适合性的比较，IPS e.max Press组与Cercon Zirconia组组间差异均无统计学意义（t_内间隙 = 0.8410，P_内间隙 = 0.4114，t_边缘间隙 = 1.499，P_边缘间隙 = 0.1512，t_{绝对边缘间隙} = 1.630，P_{绝对边缘间隙} = 0.1206）；In-Ceram Spinell组内间隙宽度大于IPS e.max Press组，差异有统计学意义（t = 2.146，P = 0.0457），其绝对边缘间隙大于Cercon Zirconia组，差异也有统计学意义（t = 2.305，P = 0.0333）。

不同加工方法制作的In-Ceram Spinell嵌体、IPS e.max Press嵌体和Cercon Zirconia嵌体均能获得良好的内部适合性，可满足临床牙体缺损修复需求；其中CAD-CAM技术制作Cercon Zirconia嵌体有更好的边缘适合性，值得临床推广应用。

The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the marginal and internal fit of ceramic inlays made by slurry molding, heat-pressed and computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) techniques restoring the cavities with the same figuration and size.

The material of the sample was organic glass. Thirty samples were prepared into standard cavities using computer numerically controlled system and assigned to three groups (n = 10 each) according to different processing techniques and materials using a random number table method. The In-Ceram Spinell group was restored with In-Ceram Spinel inlays made by slurry molding technique, while the IPS e.max Press group was restored with IPS e.max Press inlays made by heat-pressed technique and the Cercon Zirconia group was restored with Cercon Zirconia inlays made by CAD-CAM technique. Scanning electron microscope (×300 magnification) was used to observe the edge morphology of inlays and measure the gaps between the inlay and cavity. The data were analyzed using SAS, and the inter-group comparison was examined by LSD-t test.

All of the inlays showed smooth surfaces. The even and smooth surface and integrated margin were obtained in Cercon Zirconia group. The internal gap (IG) of the three groups, In-Ceram Spinell group: (94 ± 41) μm; IPS e.max Press group: (64 ± 20) μm and Cercon Zirconia group: (72 ± 25) μm, were less than 120 μm. The marginal gap (MG) , (100 ± 37) μm, and the absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) , (119 ± 38) μm, of Cercon Zircon group were less than 120 μm. There were no statistically significant differences between IPS e.max Press and Cercon Zirconia group (t_IG = 0.8410, P_IG = 0.4114, t_MG = 1.499, P_MG = 0.1512, t_AMD = 1.630, P_AMD = 0.1206) . Statistical difference was found in IG between In-Ceram Spinell and IPS e.max Press group (t = 2.146, P = 0.0457) , as well as in AMG (t = 2.305, P = 0.0333) between In-Ceram Spinell and Cercon Zirconia group.

The In-Ceram Spinell, IPS e.max Press and Cercon Zirconia inlays fabricated by different processing techniques provided clinically acceptable marginal and internal fit. The Cercon Zircon inlay made by CAD-CAM technique showed better results than the IPS e.max Press and the In-Ceram Spinell inalys.