Khaled Q Al Hamad1, Bashar A Al Rashdan2, Wael M Al Omari1, Nadim Z Baba3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Irbid, Jordan. 2. Private practice, Amman, Jordan. 3. Advanced Specialty Education Program in Prosthodontics, Loma Linda University, School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the fit of single crowns fabricated using conventional, digital, or cast digitization methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One subject with a peg-shaped maxillary lateral incisor was selected in this study. Tooth preparation for an all-ceramic crown was performed and 10 conventional poly(vinyl siloxane) impressions, and 10 digital impressions using an intraoral scanner were made. Each working cast was scanned using a laboratory scanner and an intraoral scanner. Four groups were tested Group 1: conventional impressions. Group 2: cast laboratory scans. Group 3: cast scans using intraoral scanner. Group 4: direct intraoral scans. For group 1, heat-pressed glass ceramic crowns (IPS e.max Press) were fabricated using casts produced from the conventional impressions. For groups 2-4, crowns were milled using ceramic blocks (IPS e.max CAD). Ten crowns were fabricated for each group. Marginal and internal gaps were measured using a replica technique. Replicas were sectioned mesiodistally and buccolingually and were observed under a stereomicroscope. Three measurements were selected for each cut: occlusal, axial, and marginal. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. RESULTS: For each replica, 6 measurements were made for the mesiodistal and the same for the buccolingual cuts, producing 12 measurement points per crown (4 measurements for marginal, 4 for axial, 4 for occlusal), 120 measurements for each group (40 measurements for marginal, 40 for axial, 40 for occlusal), and 480 measurements in total. Two-way ANOVA revealed location to be a significant factor (p = 0.001). No significant differences among groups (p = 0.456), and no interactions between groups and locations (p = 0.221) were found. Means for the occlusal site were significantly larger than other sites in most group combinations, while the difference between the marginal and axial sites was not significant. No significant differences among groups were found for each measurement. The marginal gaps ranged from 125.46 ± 25.39 μm for group 3 to 135.59 ± 24.07 μm for group 4. The smallest axial mean was in group 1 (98.10 ± 18.77 μm), and the largest was 127.25 ± 19.79 μm in group 4. The smallest occlusal mean was in group 2 (166.53 ± 36.51 μm), and the largest occlusal mean was in group 3 (203.32 ± 80.24 μm). CONCLUSIONS: Ceramic crowns, which were made using all-digital approach or cast digitization by a laboratory or intraoral scanner had comparable fit to those produced by conventional approach.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the fit of single crowns fabricated using conventional, digital, or cast digitization methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One subject with a peg-shaped maxillary lateral incisor was selected in this study. Tooth preparation for an all-ceramic crown was performed and 10 conventional poly(vinyl siloxane) impressions, and 10 digital impressions using an intraoral scanner were made. Each working cast was scanned using a laboratory scanner and an intraoral scanner. Four groups were tested Group 1: conventional impressions. Group 2: cast laboratory scans. Group 3: cast scans using intraoral scanner. Group 4: direct intraoral scans. For group 1, heat-pressed glass ceramic crowns (IPS e.max Press) were fabricated using casts produced from the conventional impressions. For groups 2-4, crowns were milled using ceramic blocks (IPS e.max CAD). Ten crowns were fabricated for each group. Marginal and internal gaps were measured using a replica technique. Replicas were sectioned mesiodistally and buccolingually and were observed under a stereomicroscope. Three measurements were selected for each cut: occlusal, axial, and marginal. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. RESULTS: For each replica, 6 measurements were made for the mesiodistal and the same for the buccolingual cuts, producing 12 measurement points per crown (4 measurements for marginal, 4 for axial, 4 for occlusal), 120 measurements for each group (40 measurements for marginal, 40 for axial, 40 for occlusal), and 480 measurements in total. Two-way ANOVA revealed location to be a significant factor (p = 0.001). No significant differences among groups (p = 0.456), and no interactions between groups and locations (p = 0.221) were found. Means for the occlusal site were significantly larger than other sites in most group combinations, while the difference between the marginal and axial sites was not significant. No significant differences among groups were found for each measurement. The marginal gaps ranged from 125.46 ± 25.39 μm for group 3 to 135.59 ± 24.07 μm for group 4. The smallest axial mean was in group 1 (98.10 ± 18.77 μm), and the largest was 127.25 ± 19.79 μm in group 4. The smallest occlusal mean was in group 2 (166.53 ± 36.51 μm), and the largest occlusal mean was in group 3 (203.32 ± 80.24 μm). CONCLUSIONS: Ceramic crowns, which were made using all-digital approach or cast digitization by a laboratory or intraoral scanner had comparable fit to those produced by conventional approach.