Statement of problem
Although digital scanning has become popular, conventional impressions with polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) are still the gold standard for fabricating indirect restorations. Studies comparing the marginal fit obtained from both techniques are sparse.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal fit of zirconia copings fabricated by using a conventional impression and 2 digital scanning techniques.
Material and methods
A typodont mandibular left second premolar was prepared for a complete crown. Ten impressions were made in each experimental group: PVS group, conventional impression with PVS; TRIOS 3 group, impression with intraoral scanner TRIOS 3; and CS 3600 group, impression with intraoral scanner CS 3600. Thirty zirconia copings were fabricated with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology, and the marginal discrepancy was measured in 4 locations per specimen by using a stereo microscope. Additionally, the marginal discrepancy of each coping obtained in the PVS group was measured on the stone die produced, creating the PVS A group. The mean value of discrepancy was calculated for each location and each group. Statistically significant differences among the impression techniques were tested with 1-way ANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA, and the t test (α=.05).
The mean ±standard deviation values of vertical marginal discrepancy were 106 ±87 μm for the PVS group, 34 ±49 μm for the PVS A group, 53 ±56 μm for the TRIOS 3 group, and 93 ±69 μm for the CS 3600 group. Statistically significant differences (P<.05) were found between the PVS group and TRIOS 3 group and between the CS 3600 group and TRIOS 3 group.
Digital scanning with the TRIOS 3 showed lower values of marginal discrepancy than the digital scan with the CS 3600 and conventional impression making with an elastomer.
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 access
One-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 Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Long-term dimensional stability of three current elastomers.J Oral Rehabil. 1983; 10: 325-333
- Changes in properties of nonaqueous elastomeric impression materials after storage of components.J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85: 73-81
- Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time.J Prosthodont. 2002; 11: 98-108
- Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material.Quintessence Int. 2006; 37: 47-51
- Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions?.J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139: 761-763
- Current technologies for functional diagnostics and CAD-CAM.Int J Comput Dent. 2013; 16: 163-171
- Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 111-115
- Integrating three-dimensional digital technologies for comprehensive implant dentistry.J Am Dent Assoc. 2010; 141: 20-24
- The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study.J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145: 542-551
- Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 403-406
- Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1430-1435
- Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 465-472
- Evaluation of the marginal fit of single unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 328-335
- Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 184-190
- The fit of Procera titanium crowns. An in vitro and clinical study.Acta Odontol Scand. 1993; 51: 129-134
- Influence of marginal opening on microleakage of cemented artificial crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 71: 257-264
- Precision of fit: the Procera AllCeram crown.J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80: 394-404
- Considerations in measurement of marginal fit.J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62: 405-408
- Marginal and internal discrepancies related to margin design of ceramic crowns fabricated by a CAD-CAM system.J Prosthodont. 2012; 21: 94-100
- Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures.Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20: 383-388
- Periodontal tissue responses after insertion of artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures.J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84: 492-498
- Marginal fit of gold inlay castings.J Prosthet Dent. 1966; 16: 297-305
- The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique.Br Dent J. 1971; 131: 107-111
- Marginal adaptation of full-coverage CAD-CAM restorations: in vitro study using a non-destructive method.Minerva Stomatol. 2009; 58: 61-72
- Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review.J Prosthodont. 2013; 22: 419-428
- Effect of different retraction and impression techniques on the marginal fit of crowns.J Dent. 2008; 36: 508-512
- 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.J Prosthodont. 2014; 23: 610-617
- Accuracy of digital impressions and fitness of single crowns based on digital impressions.Materials (Basel). 2015; 8: 3945-3957
- Intraoral digital impression technique: a review.J Prosthodont. 2015; 24: 313-321
- Digital versus conventional impressions for full-coverage restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Am Dent Assoc. 2018; 149: 139-147.e1
- Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 447-454
- A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 555-560
- Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1171-1175
- Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD-CAM technology by using conventional impressions and 2 intraoral digital scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 554-559
- Dimensional changes of dental impression materials by thermal changes.J Biomed Mater Res. 2001; 58: 217-220
Published online: April 24, 2020
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.