G Malaguti1, R Rossi2, B Marziali2, A Esposito3, G Bruno4, C Dariol5, A DI Fiore5. 1. DDS, Private practice, Bagnolo in Piano (RE), Italy. 2. ODT, Private practice, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 3. DDS, Private practice, Modena, Italy. 4. Student, Department of Neuroscience, School of Dentistry, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. 5. DDS, Department of Neuroscience, School of Dentistry, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of zirconia core crowns manufactured following different digital and traditional workflows. METHODS: A 6° taper shoulder prepared abutment tooth was used to produce 20 zirconia core crowns using four different scanning techniques: scanned directly with the extraoral lab scanner, scanned with intraoral scanner, dental impressions using individual dental tray and polyether, dental casts from a polyether impressions. Marginal and internal fits were evaluated with digital photography and the silicone replica method. RESULTS: Medium marginal gaps were 76,00 μm ± 28.9 for extraoral lab scanner, 80.50 μm ± 36,2 for intraoral scanner, 88.10 μm ± 34,8 for dental impression scan and 112,4 μm ± 37,2 for dental cast scan. Medium internal gaps were 23.20 μm ± 10,3 for extraoral lab scanner, 16.20 μm ± 8.3 for intraoral scanner, 27.20 μm ± 16.7 for dental impression scan and 30.20 μm ± 12.7 for dental cast scan. CONCLUSION: Internal gap were extensively lower than 70 μm described in literature. Marginal fit was higher than ideal values for all the techniques but within the limit of clinical success. Intraoral scanners obtained the best results for internal gap.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of zirconia core crowns manufactured following different digital and traditional workflows. METHODS: A 6° taper shoulder prepared abutment tooth was used to produce 20 zirconia core crowns using four different scanning techniques: scanned directly with the extraoral lab scanner, scanned with intraoral scanner, dental impressions using individual dental tray and polyether, dental casts from a polyether impressions. Marginal and internal fits were evaluated with digital photography and the silicone replica method. RESULTS: Medium marginal gaps were 76,00 μm ± 28.9 for extraoral lab scanner, 80.50 μm ± 36,2 for intraoral scanner, 88.10 μm ± 34,8 for dental impression scan and 112,4 μm ± 37,2 for dental cast scan. Medium internal gaps were 23.20 μm ± 10,3 for extraoral lab scanner, 16.20 μm ± 8.3 for intraoral scanner, 27.20 μm ± 16.7 for dental impression scan and 30.20 μm ± 12.7 for dental cast scan. CONCLUSION: Internal gap were extensively lower than 70 μm described in literature. Marginal fit was higher than ideal values for all the techniques but within the limit of clinical success. Intraoral scanners obtained the best results for internal gap.
Entities:
Keywords:
CAD/CAM; dental impression materials; intraoral scanner; marginal fit