Abstract
Statement of problem
Direct digitization of the impression by using an intraoral scanner is a newly introduced
technique, but studies comparing the method with other digitization techniques are
lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal accuracy of zirconia
copings fabricated with 4 different scanning methods.
Material and methods
Scans (n=10) of a brass master die were made with a direct method (ISD) in which the
die was directly digitized by using an intraoral scanner (IOS) and 3 indirect scanning
methods, a conventional impression with polyvinyl siloxane material digitized with
either the same IOS (ISI) or with a laboratory extraoral scanner (ESI), or a cast
from the impression was scanned by using a laboratory extraoral scanner (ESC). Forty
zirconia copings were milled from presintered zirconia blanks and sintered. The vertical
marginal gap was measured at 12 points on the master die by using a digital microscope.
One-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean differences among the 4 groups, and post
hoc analysis was used for pairwise comparison of the groups (α=.05).
Results
The mean ±standard deviation of the vertical marginal gap was 73 ±7 μm in the ISD
group, 109 ±36 μm in the ISI group, 42 ±4 μm in the ESI group, and 97 ±5 μm in the
ESC group. The lowest marginal gap was seen in the ESI group, which was significantly
different from the 3 other groups (P≤.001). The copings in the ISD group had a significantly lower marginal gap than those
in the ISI (P=.04) and ESC (P<.001) groups. However, the ISI and ESC groups were not significantly different (P=.69).
Conclusions
Marginal adaptation of all zirconia copings fabricated with these 4 scanning techniques
was within a clinically acceptable range. However, ESI was the best method of digitization
and yielded copings with minimum vertical marginal gap.
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
- An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature.J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 96: 433-442
- Which all-ceramic system is optimal for anterior esthetics?.J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139: S19-S24
- Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 447-454
- Clinical study of the internal gaps of zirconia and metal frameworks for fixed partial dentures.Eur J Oral Sci. 2008; 116: 272-279
- The clinical success of all-ceramic restorations.J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139: S8-S13
- Systematic reviews: I. The correlation between laboratory tests on marginal quality and bond strength. II. The correlation between marginal quality and clinical outcome.J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9: 77-106
- Interactions between the gingiva and the margin of restorations.J Clin Periodontol. 2003; 30: 379-385
- Three-year clinical evaluation of in-ceram zirconia posterior FPDs.Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17: 35-38
- Influence of marginal fit and cement types on microleakage of all-ceramic crown systems.Braz Oral Res. 2011; 25: 261-266
- Effect of finish line variants on marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceramic optimized polymer/fiber-reinforced composite crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91: 554-560
- The effect of various finish line preparations on the marginal seal and occlusal seat of full crown preparations.J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 45: 138-145
- Comparison of the marginal fit of procera allceram crowns with two finish lines.Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16: 229-232
- The effect of sintering time on the marginal fit of zirconia copings.J Prosthodont. 2018; 28: e285-e289
- An in vitro comparison of vertical marginal gaps of CAD/CAM titanium and conventional cast restorations.J Prosthodont. 2008; 17: 378-383
- The effect of various veneering techniques on the marginal fit of zirconia copings.J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7: 233-239
- Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial.Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 291-300
- A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 555-560
- Marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained using different digital scanning methods.Braz Oral Res. 2016; 30: e113
- Zirconia-based fixed partial dentures: a clinical review.Quintessence Int. 2011; 42: 173-182
- Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing.Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1201-1208
- Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness.Dent Mater. 2009; 25: 929-936
- Transformation toughening in zirconia-containing ceramics.J Am Ceram Soc. 2000; 83: 461-487
- Computerized technology for restorative dentistry.Am J Dent. 2013; 26: 115-120
- Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations.J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24: 85-94
- Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
- 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
- Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations.J Dent. 2007; 35: 903-908
- Intraoral digital scanners.J Clin Orthod. 2014; 48: 337-347
- Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an in-vitro study.J Prosthodont Res. 2015; 59: 236-242
- Factors influencing optical 3D scanning of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials.J Prosthodont. 2001; 10: 78-85
- Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera.Int J Comput Dent. 2009; 12: 11-28
- Accuracy of elastomeric impressions disinfected by immersion.J Am Dent Assoc. 1988; 116: 525-530
- An evaluation of the time-dependent dimensional stability of eleven elastomeric impression materials.J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 52: 120-125
- Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.Int J Comput Dent. 2010; 14: 11-21
- Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow.Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1759-1764
- Intraoral digital impression technique: a review.J Prosthodont. 2015; 24: 313-321
- Contemporary fixed prosthodontics.5th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences, St. Louis2015: 265-266
- Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 507-512
- The accuracy of the cad system using intraoral and extraoral scanners for designing of fixed dental prostheses.Dent Mater J. 2017; 36: 402-407
- Comparison of margin discrepancy of complete gold crowns fabricated using printed, milled, and conventional hand-waxed patterns.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 89-94
- Influence of porcelain firing and cementation on the marginal adaptation of metal-ceramic restorations prepared by different methods.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 656-661
- Evaluation of the marginal fit of CAD-CAM zirconia copings: comparison of 2D and 3D measurement methods.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 75-81
- Considerations in measurement of marginal fit.J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62: 405-408
- The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique.Br Dent J. 1971; 131: 107-111
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 28, 2020
Footnotes
Supported by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, grant #12753.
Ethical approval: This project was found to be in accordance with the ethical principles and national norms and standards for conducting medical research in Iran (IR.SUMS.REC.1396.S707).
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
