Ana Elisa Colle Kauling1, Christine Keul1, Kurt Erdelt1, Jan Kühnisch2, Jan-Frederik Güth3,3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital, LMU, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, LMU, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital, LMU, Munich, Germany. jan_frederik.gueth@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluating the fit of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic crowns fabricated on basis of direct and indirect digitalization of impressions by CBCT or of dental casts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A metal model with a molar chamfer preparation was digitized (n = 12 per group) in four ways: IOS-direct digitalization using an Intra-Oral scanner (CS3600), cone-beam computed tomography scan (CBCT 1)-indirect digitalization of impression (CBCT-CS9300), CBCT 2-indirect digitalization of impression (CBCT-CS8100), and Extra-Oral scanner (EOS)-indirect digitalization of gypsum-cast (CeramillMap400). Accuracy of 3D datasets was evaluated in relation to a reference dataset by best-fit superimposition. Marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns after grinding was evaluated by replica technique. Significant differences were detected for 3D accuracy by Mann-Whitney U and for fit of crowns by One-way ANOVA followed by Scheffe's post hoc (p = 0.05). RESULTS: 3D analysis revealed mean positive and negative deviations for the groups IOS (- 0.011 ± 0.007 mm/0.010 ± 0.003 mm), CBCT 1 (- 0.046 ± 0.008 mm/0.093 ± 0.004 mm), CBCT 2 (- 0.049 ± 0.030 mm/0.072 ± 0.015 mm), and EOS (- 0.023 ± 0.007 mm/0.028 ± 0.007 mm). Marginal fit presented the results IOS (0.056 ± 0.022 mm), CBCT 1 (0.096 ± 0.034 mm), CBCT 2 (0.068 ± 0,026 mm), and EOS (0.051 ± 0.017 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The marginal fit of EOS and IOS, IOS and CBCT 2, and CBCT 2 and CBCT 1 showed statistical differences. The marginal fit of CBCT 1 and CBCT 2 is within the range of clinical acceptance; however, it is significant inferior to EOS and IOS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of a CBCT enables clinicians to digitize conventional impressions. Despite presenting results within clinical acceptable levels, the CBCT base method seems to be inferior to Intra-Oral scans or to scanning gypsum models regarding the resulting accuracy and fit.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluating the fit of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic crowns fabricated on basis of direct and indirect digitalization of impressions by CBCT or of dental casts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A metal model with a molar chamfer preparation was digitized (n = 12 per group) in four ways: IOS-direct digitalization using an Intra-Oral scanner (CS3600), cone-beam computed tomography scan (CBCT 1)-indirect digitalization of impression (CBCT-CS9300), CBCT 2-indirect digitalization of impression (CBCT-CS8100), and Extra-Oral scanner (EOS)-indirect digitalization of gypsum-cast (CeramillMap400). Accuracy of 3D datasets was evaluated in relation to a reference dataset by best-fit superimposition. Marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns after grinding was evaluated by replica technique. Significant differences were detected for 3D accuracy by Mann-Whitney U and for fit of crowns by One-way ANOVA followed by Scheffe's post hoc (p = 0.05). RESULTS: 3D analysis revealed mean positive and negative deviations for the groups IOS (- 0.011 ± 0.007 mm/0.010 ± 0.003 mm), CBCT 1 (- 0.046 ± 0.008 mm/0.093 ± 0.004 mm), CBCT 2 (- 0.049 ± 0.030 mm/0.072 ± 0.015 mm), and EOS (- 0.023 ± 0.007 mm/0.028 ± 0.007 mm). Marginal fit presented the results IOS (0.056 ± 0.022 mm), CBCT 1 (0.096 ± 0.034 mm), CBCT 2 (0.068 ± 0,026 mm), and EOS (0.051 ± 0.017 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The marginal fit of EOS and IOS, IOS and CBCT 2, and CBCT 2 and CBCT 1 showed statistical differences. The marginal fit of CBCT 1 and CBCT 2 is within the range of clinical acceptance; however, it is significant inferior to EOS and IOS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of a CBCT enables clinicians to digitize conventional impressions. Despite presenting results within clinical acceptable levels, the CBCT base method seems to be inferior to Intra-Oral scans or to scanning gypsum models regarding the resulting accuracy and fit.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cone-beam computed tomography; Digital impression; Direct digitalization; Fit; Indirect restorations
Authors: Tamer A Hamza; Hesham A Ezzat; Mohamed Mahmoud Khalil El-Hossary; Hesham Abd El Megid Katamish; Tamer E Shokry; Stephen F Rosenstiel Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Jan Robben; Jonas Muallah; Christian Wesemann; Roxana Nowak; James Mah; Peter Pospiech; Axel Bumann Journal: Int J Comput Dent Date: 2017 Impact factor: 1.883
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