Luciano Praça1, Fabrice Chuembou Pekam2, Rodrigo Otavio Rego3, Klaus Radermacher2, Stefan Wolfart4, Juliana Marotti5. 1. Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Medical School RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany; School of Dentistry, University of Fortaleza, Av. Washington Soares, 1321, 60.811-905 Fortaleza, Brazil. 2. Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 20, 52074 Aachen, Germany. 3. Department of Dentistry, School of Dentistry at Sobral, Federal University of Ceará, Rua Estanislau Frota S/N, 62010-560 Sobral, Brazil. 4. Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Medical School RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. 5. Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Medical School RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: jmarotti@ukaachen.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate marginal and internal fit of single crowns produced from high-frequency ultrasound based digital impressions of teeth prepared with finish lines covered by porcine gingiva, in comparison with those obtained by optical scanners with uncovered finish lines. METHODS: Ten human teeth were prepared and forty zirconia crowns were fabricated from STL-datasets obtained from four dental scanners (n=10): extraoral CS2 (Straumann), intraoral Lava COS (3M), intraoral Trios (3Shape) and extraoral ultrasound scanner. The accuracy of the crowns was compared evaluating marginal and internal fit by means of the replica technique with measurements in four areas; P1: occlusal surface; P2: transition between occlusal and axial surfaces; P3: middle of axial wall; and P4: marginal gap. Restoration margins were classified according to their mismatch as regular, underextended or overextended. Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test were used to evaluate the differences between groups at p<0.05. RESULTS: The median value of marginal gap (P4) for Ultrasound (113.87μm) differed statistically from that of CS2 (39.74μm), Lava COS (41.98μm) and Trios (42.07μm). There were no statistical differences between ultrasound and Lava COS for internal misfit (P1-P3), however there were statistical differences when compared with the other two scanners (Trios and CS2) at P1 and P2. SIGNIFICANCE: The ultrasound scanner was able to make digital impressions of prepared teeth through porcine gingiva (P4), however with less accuracy of fit than that of conventional optical scanners without coverage of the finish lines. Where no gingiva was available (P1-P3), the ultrasound accuracy of fit was similar to that of at least one optical scanner (Lava COS).
OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate marginal and internal fit of single crowns produced from high-frequency ultrasound based digital impressions of teeth prepared with finish lines covered by porcine gingiva, in comparison with those obtained by optical scanners with uncovered finish lines. METHODS: Ten human teeth were prepared and forty zirconia crowns were fabricated from STL-datasets obtained from four dental scanners (n=10): extraoral CS2 (Straumann), intraoral Lava COS (3M), intraoral Trios (3Shape) and extraoral ultrasound scanner. The accuracy of the crowns was compared evaluating marginal and internal fit by means of the replica technique with measurements in four areas; P1: occlusal surface; P2: transition between occlusal and axial surfaces; P3: middle of axial wall; and P4: marginal gap. Restoration margins were classified according to their mismatch as regular, underextended or overextended. Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test were used to evaluate the differences between groups at p<0.05. RESULTS: The median value of marginal gap (P4) for Ultrasound (113.87μm) differed statistically from that of CS2 (39.74μm), Lava COS (41.98μm) and Trios (42.07μm). There were no statistical differences between ultrasound and Lava COS for internal misfit (P1-P3), however there were statistical differences when compared with the other two scanners (Trios and CS2) at P1 and P2. SIGNIFICANCE: The ultrasound scanner was able to make digital impressions of prepared teeth through porcine gingiva (P4), however with less accuracy of fit than that of conventional optical scanners without coverage of the finish lines. Where no gingiva was available (P1-P3), the ultrasound accuracy of fit was similar to that of at least one optical scanner (Lava COS).
Authors: Juliana Marotti; Sarah Neuhaus; Daniel Habor; Lauren Bohner; Stefan Heger; Klaus Radermacher; Stefan Wolfart Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz; Jonas Vogler; Alexander Schmidt; Peter Rehmann; Bernd Wöstmann Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.390