Moritz Boeddinghaus1, Eva Sabina Breloer1, Peter Rehmann1, Bernd Wöstmann2. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Germany. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Germany. bernd.woestmann@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the marginal fit of dental crowns based on three different intraoral digital and one conventional impression methods. METHODS: Forty-nine teeth of altogether 24 patients were prepared to be treated with full-coverage restorations. Digital impressions were made using three intraoral scanners: Sirona CEREC AC Omnicam (OCam), Heraeus Cara TRIOS and 3M Lava True Definition (TDef). Furthermore, a gypsum model based on a conventional impression (EXA'lence, GC, Tokyo, Japan) was scanned with a standard laboratory scanner (3Shape D700). Based on the dataset obtained, four zirconia copings per tooth were produced. The marginal fit of the copings in the patient's mouth was assessed employing a replica technique. RESULTS: Overall, seven measurement copings did not fit and, therefore, could not be assessed. The marginal gap was 88 μm (68-136 μm) [median/interquartile range] for the TDef, 112 μm (94-149 μm) for the Cara TRIOS, 113 μm (81-157 μm) for the laboratory scanner and 149 μm (114-218 μm) for the OCam. There was a statistically significant difference between the OCam and the other groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that zirconia copings based on intraoral scans and a laboratory scans of a conventional model are comparable to one another with regard to their marginal fit. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regarding the results of this study, the digital intraoral impression can be considered as an alternative to a conventional impression with a consecutive digital workflow when the finish line is clearly visible and it is possible to keep it dry.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the marginal fit of dental crowns based on three different intraoral digital and one conventional impression methods. METHODS: Forty-nine teeth of altogether 24 patients were prepared to be treated with full-coverage restorations. Digital impressions were made using three intraoral scanners: Sirona CEREC AC Omnicam (OCam), Heraeus Cara TRIOS and 3M Lava True Definition (TDef). Furthermore, a gypsum model based on a conventional impression (EXA'lence, GC, Tokyo, Japan) was scanned with a standard laboratory scanner (3Shape D700). Based on the dataset obtained, four zirconia copings per tooth were produced. The marginal fit of the copings in the patient's mouth was assessed employing a replica technique. RESULTS: Overall, seven measurement copings did not fit and, therefore, could not be assessed. The marginal gap was 88 μm (68-136 μm) [median/interquartile range] for the TDef, 112 μm (94-149 μm) for the Cara TRIOS, 113 μm (81-157 μm) for the laboratory scanner and 149 μm (114-218 μm) for the OCam. There was a statistically significant difference between the OCam and the other groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that zirconia copings based on intraoral scans and a laboratory scans of a conventional model are comparable to one another with regard to their marginal fit. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regarding the results of this study, the digital intraoral impression can be considered as an alternative to a conventional impression with a consecutive digital workflow when the finish line is clearly visible and it is possible to keep it dry.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conventional and digital impression methods; Dental crowns; Single-tooth restorations
Authors: Tabea V Flügge; Stefan Schlager; Katja Nelson; Susanne Nahles; Marc C Metzger Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Michael S McCracken; David R Louis; Mark S Litaker; Helena M Minyé; Thomas Oates; Valeria V Gordan; Don G Marshall; Cyril Meyerowitz; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 2.752
Authors: Michael S McCracken; Mark S Litaker; Ashley J George; Scott Durand; Sepideh Malekpour; Don G Marshall; Cyril Meyerowitz; Lauren Carter; Valeria V Gordan; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 3.634