Statement of problem
The digital scanning technique has been introduced as an alternative to the conventional impression technique for the fabrication of fixed restorations. However, adequate information is not available on the efficacy of digital scanning for the fabrication of endocrowns regarding their marginal accuracy.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal gap of endocrowns fabricated by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology and digital scanning and conventional impression techniques.
Material and methods
An endodontically treated mandibular molar tooth was prepared to receive an endocrown. The impressions were made by using the conventional impression technique with polyvinyl siloxane material (n=11) and digital scanning by using an intraoral scanner (n=11). Endocrowns were fabricated from monolithic zirconia blocks by using a milling machine. Each restoration was seated on the prepared tooth, and the marginal gap was measured by using a video measuring machine at 8 points under magnification. The mean marginal gap for each restoration and the overall mean marginal gap for each group were calculated. Data were analyzed by using a statistical software program. Marginal gaps were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).
The mean marginal gap was 74 μm for the conventional impression group. A similar mean marginal gap (70 μm) was found for the digital scanning group. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups (P=.375).
The digital scanning technique and the conventional impression technique yielded crowns with comparable marginal adaptation.
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
- Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 554-559
- Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques.Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18: 515-523
- 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
- Conservative zirconia-ceramic bridge in front teeth. Case report.Oral Implantol (Rome). 2014; 7: 93-98
- Micro-CT evaluation of marginal and internal fit of cemented polymer infiltrated ceramic network material crowns manufactured after conventional and digital impressions.J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 40-46
- Combined digital/conventional technique for rehabilitation of a patient with epidermolysis bullosa: a case letter.J Oral Implantol. 2017; 43: 387-391
- The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow—the comparison of two systems.Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 2119-2125
- Mechanical characterization of an innovative dental implant system.J Appl Biomater Biomech. 2009; 7: 23-28
- Design and production of dental prosthetic restorations: basic research on dental CAD/CAM technology.Int J Comput Dent. 2002; 5: 165-176
- Endocrown restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Dent. 2016; 52: 8-14
- The endocrown: an alternative approach for restoring extensively damaged molars.J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013; 25: 383-390
- Assessment of marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of endocrown restorations utilizing different machinable blocks subjected to thermomechanical aging.J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30: 319-328
- Evaluation of the marginal and internal discrepancies of CAD-CAM endocrowns with different cavity depths: an in vitro study.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 109-115
- Internal fit of lithium disilicate and resin nano-ceramic endocrowns with different preparation designs.Future Dent J. 2017; 3: 67-72
- Comparison of fracture strength of endocrowns and glass fiber post-retained conventional crowns.Oper Dent. 2012; 37: 130-136
- Fiber-reinforced resin coating for endocrown preparations: a technical report.Oper Dent. 2013; 38: 242-248
- Restoring endodontically treated teeth with all-ceramic endo-crowns: case report.Stomatol Glas Srb. 2008; 55: 54-64
- Endocrowns: review.J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2015; 49: 57-63
- Influence of marginal opening on microleakage of cemented artificial crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 71: 257-264
- Unserviceable crowns and fixed partial dentures: life-span and causes for loss of serviceability.J Am Dent Assoc. 1970; 81: 1395-1401
- Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions.Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 799-806
- Comparison of marginal fit between CAD-CAM and hot-press lithium disilicate crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 124-128
- The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique.Br Dent J. 1971; 131: 107-111
- 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
- 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 pressed lithium disilicate inlays fabricated with milling, 3D printing, and conventional technologies.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 783-790
- Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows.J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 25-30
- An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems.J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 581-586
- Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 362-367
- Comparison of marginal fit of cemented zirconia copings manufactured after digital impression with lava™ COS and conventional impression technique.BMC Oral Health. 2016; 16: 129
- Fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions assessed with micro-CT.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 551-557
- Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 386-391
- Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions—a clinical comparative study.Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 579-587
- The marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns: press vs. CAD/CAM.Braz Oral Res. 2018; 32: e001
- Influence of preparation design on fit and ceramic thickness of CEREC 3 partial ceramic crowns after cementation.Acta Odontol Scand. 2015; 73: 107-113
- Adaptation of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures.Dent Mater. 2011; 27: 1119-1126
- Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations: a systematic review of in vitro studies.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 590-597
- Apical crown technique to model canal roots. A review of the literature.Minerva Stomatol. 2007; 56: 445-459
- A survey of filling methods, intracanal medications, and instrument breakage.J Endod. 1999; 25: 823-824
- Marginal accuracy of temporary composite crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 1987; 58: 417-421
Published online: November 13, 2020
Supported by Dental Sciences Research Center of Guilan University of Medical Sciences (grant number: IR.GUMS.REC.1397.416).
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.