Abstract
Statement of problem
Little peer-reviewed information is available regarding the accuracy and reproducibility
of digitally fabricated casts compared to conventional nondigital methods.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy and reproducibility
of a digital impression and cast fabrication with a conventional impression and cast
fabrication.
Material and methods
Conventional impressions were made via a 1-step single viscosity technique with vinyl
siloxanether material of a typodont master model, and conventional casts were cast
from dental stone. Digital impressions were obtained with a digital scanner, and digital
stereolithographic models were printed. The typodont and fabricated casts were digitized
with a structured light scanner and saved in surface tessellation language (STL) format.
All STL records were superimposed via a best-fit method. The digital impression and
cast fabrication method was compared with the conventional impression and cast fabrication
method for discrepancy, accuracy, and reproducibility. The Levene test was used to
determine equality of variances, and a 1-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the overall
statistical significance of differences among the groups (n=5, α=.05).
Results
No significant statistical difference was found between the digital cast and conventional
casts in the internal area or finish line area (P>.05). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between these
2 techniques for a fixed dental prosthesis or single crown (P>.05). However, statistically significant differences were observed for overall areas
of the casts in terms of accuracy (P<.01) and reproducibility (P<.001). Digital impression and cast fabrication were less accurate and reproducible
than conventional impression and cast fabrication methods.
Conclusions
No statistically significant difference was found between the digital cast and conventional
cast groups in the internal and finish line areas. However, in terms of the reproducibility
and accuracy of the entire cast area, the conventional cast was significantly better
than the digital cast.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Computer aided analysis of digitized dental stone replicas by dental CAD/CAM technology.Dent Mater. 2008; 24: 1123-1130
- Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 103: 13-22
- Accuracy of implant impressions without impression copings: a three-dimensional analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 105: 367-373
- Temperature effects on the rheological properties of current polyether and polysiloxane impression materials during setting.J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90: 150-161
- Clinical parameters influencing the accuracy of 1- and 2-stage impressions: a randomized controlled trial.Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21: 322-327
- Marginal fit of heat-pressed vs CAD/CAM processed all-ceramic onlays using a milling unit prototype.Oper Dent. 2008; 33: 644-650
- An in vitro study on the dimensional stability of a vinyl polyether silicone impression material over a prolonged storage period.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 172-178
- Influence of technique and pouring time on dimensional stability of polyvinyl siloxane and polyether impressions.Int J Prosthodont. 2012; 25: 353-356
- Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time.J Prosthodont. 2002; : 98-108
- Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material.J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 103: 228-239
- Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional accuracy of a single tooth captured by elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study.J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 108: 165-172
- Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions: an in-vitro study.Int J Comput Dent. 2011; 14: 11-21
- Digital workflow with the chair-side oral scanner COS and Lava-technology.Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2012; 122: 307-315
- A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy.J Orthod. 2008; 35: 191-201
- The relationship between digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions.Angle Orthodont. 2009; 79: 30-36
- Acuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging.Int J Prosthodont. 2013; 26: 161-163
- Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing.Clin Oral Invest. 2013; 17: 1201-1208
- Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144: 471-478
- Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility.Dent Mater. 2012; 28: 320-326
- Accuracy of newly formulated fast-setting elastomeric impression materials.J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93: 530-539
- Dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials in custom-made and stock trays.J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 52: 514-517
- The effect of a surface wetting agent on void formation in impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77: 54-56
- Qualitative computer aided evaluation of dental impressions in vivo.Dent Mater. 2006; 22: 69-76
Article info
Publication history
Published online: February 11, 2015
Identification
Copyright
© 2015 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
