Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Research and Education|Articles in Press

Does partial adhesive preparation design and finish line depth influence trueness and precision of intraoral scanners?


      Statement of problem

      Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are widely used for partial-coverage adhesive restorations, but data on their performance in such preparations with complex geometries are sparse.


      The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate whether the partial-coverage adhesive preparation design and finish line depth affect the trueness and precision of different IOSs.

      Material and methods

      Seven partial-coverage adhesive preparation designs (4 different onlays, 2 endocrowns, and 1 occlusal veneer) were tested on copies of the same tooth placed in a typodont mounted on a mannequin. Each preparation was scanned 10 times with 6 different IOSs (total 420 scans) under the same light conditions. Trueness and precision, defined according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 5725-1 standard, were analyzed with a best-fit algorithm by superimposition. The obtained data were analyzed by a 2-way analysis of variance to examine the effects of partial-coverage adhesive preparation design, IOS, and their interactions (α=.05).


      Significant differences were found among different preparation designs and IOSs (P<.05) in terms of both trueness and precision. Significant differences were also found among mean positive and negative values (P<.05). Moreover, crosslinks observed between the preparation area and the adjacent teeth correlated with the finish line depth.


      Complex partial adhesive preparation designs affect the trueness and precision of IOSs, resulting in significant differences among them. Interproximal preparations should take into account the IOS’s resolution and placing the finish line close to adjacent structures should be avoided.
      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 to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Van Noort R.
        The future of dental devices is digital.
        Dent Mater. 2012; 28: 3-12
        • Wittneben J.-G.
        • Wright R.F.
        • Weber H.-P.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        A systematic review of the clinical performance of CAD/CAM single-tooth restorations.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22: 466-471
        • Fasbinder D.J.
        Computerized technology for restorative dentistry.
        Am J Dent. 2013; 26: 115-120
        • Patzelt S.B.M.
        • Lamprinos C.
        • Stampf S.
        • Att W.
        The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145: 542-551
        • Güth J.-F.
        • Runkel C.
        • Beuer F.
        • Stimmelmayr M.
        • Edelhoff D.
        • Keul C.
        Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 1445-1455
        • Ender A.
        • Zimmermann M.
        • Attin T.
        • Mehl A.
        In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1495-1504
        • Mangano F.
        • Gandolfi A.
        • Luongo G.
        • Logozzo S.
        Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature.
        BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 149
        • Keeling A.
        • Wu J.
        • Ferrari M.
        Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan.
        J Dent. 2017; 59: 33-40
        • Ashraf Y.
        • Sabet A.
        • Hamdy A.
        • Ebeid K.
        Influence of preparation type and tooth geometry on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 800-804
        • Felton D.A.
        • Kanoy B.E.
        • Bayne S.C.
        • Wirthman G.P.
        Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65: 357-364
        • Lang N.P.
        • Kiel R.A.
        • Anderhalden K.
        Clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival restorations with overhanging or clinically perfect margins.
        J Clin Periodontol. 1983; 10: 563-578
        • Ammoun R.
        • Suprono M.S.
        • Goodacre C.J.
        • Oyoyo U.
        • Carrico C.K.
        • Kattadiyil M.T.
        Influence of tooth preparation design and scan angulations on the accuracy of two intraoral digital scanners: an in vitro study based on 3-dimensional comparisons.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 201-206
        • Perdigão J.
        • Araujo E.
        • Ramos R.Q.
        • Gomes G.
        • Pizzolotto L.
        Adhesive dentistry: current concepts and clinical considerations.
        J Esthet Dent. 2021; 33: 51-68
        • Perdigão J.
        Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion - not there yet.
        Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2020; 56: 190-207
        • Dietschi D.
        • Monasevic M.
        • Krejci I.
        • Davidson C.
        Marginal and internal adaptation of class II restorations after immediate or delayed composite placement.
        J Dent. 2002; 30: 259-269
        • Browet S.
        • Gerdolle D.
        Precision and security in restorative dentistry: the synergy of isolation and magnification.
        Int J Esthet Dent. 2017; 12: 172-185
        • Politano G.
        • Van Meerbeek B.
        • Peumans M.
        Nonretentive bonded ceramic partial crowns: concept and simplified protocol for long-lasting dental restorations.
        J Adhes Dent. 2018; 20: 495-510
        • Politano G.
        • Fabianelli A.
        • Papacchini F.
        • Cerutti A.
        The use of bonded partial ceramic restorations to recover heavily compromised teeth.
        Int J Esthet Dent. 2016; 11: 314-336
        • Frankenberger R.
        • Winter J.
        • Dudek M.C.
        • et al.
        Post-fatigue fracture and marginal behavior of endodontically treated teeth: Partial crown vs. full crown vs. endocrown vs. fiber-reinforced resin composite.
        Materials (Basel). 2021; 14: 7733
        • Yang Y.
        • Yang Z.
        • Zhou J.
        • Chen L.
        • Tan J.
        Effect of tooth preparation design on marginal adaptation of composite resin CAD-CAM onlays.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 88-93
        • Lee M.R.
        • Cho B.H.
        • Son H.H.
        • Um C.M.
        • Lee I.B.
        Influence of cavity dimension and restoration methods on the cusp deflection of premolars in composite restorations.
        Dental Mater. 2007; 23: 288-295
        • Ferrari Cagidiaco E.
        • Zarone F.
        • Discepoli N.
        • Joda T.
        • Ferrari M.
        Analysis of the reproducibility of subgingival vertical margins using intraoral optical scanning (IOS): a randomized controlled pilot trial.
        J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 941
        • Zimmermann M.
        • Ender A.
        • Mehl A.
        Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2020; 151: 127-135
        • Ferrari M.
        • Keeling A.
        • Mandelli F.
        • Lo Giudice G.
        • Garcia-Godoy F.
        • Joda T.
        The ability of marginal detection using different intraoral scanning systems: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
        Am J Dent. 2018; 31: 272-276
        • Potran M.
        • Štrbac B.
        • Puškar T.
        • Hadžistević M.
        • Hodolič J.
        • Trifković B.
        Measurement of the accuracy of dental working casts using a coordinate measuring machine.
        Vojnosanit Pregl. 2016; 73: 895-903
        • Memari Y.
        • Mohajerfar M.
        • Armin A.
        • Kamalian F.
        • Rezayani V.
        • Beyabanaki E.
        Marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns made by different impression methods: a literature review.
        J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: e536-e544
        • Ahlholm P.
        • Sipilä K.
        • Vallittu P.
        • Jakonen M.
        • Kotiranta U.
        Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review.
        J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41
        • Berrendero S.
        • Salido M.P.
        • Ferreiroa A.
        • Valverde A.
        • Pradíes G.
        Comparative study of all-ceramic crowns obtained from conventional and digital impressions: clinical findings.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23: 1745-1751
        • Kim J.-H.
        • Son S.-A.
        • Lee H.
        • Kim R.J.-Y.
        • Park J.-K.
        In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2021; 65: 400-406
        • Veneziani M.
        Posterior indirect adhesive restorations: updated indications and the morphology driven preparation technique.
        Int J Esthet Dent. 2017; 12: 204-230
        • Al-Imam H.
        • Gram M.
        • Benetti A.R.
        • Gotfredsen K.
        Accuracy of stereolithography additive casts used in a digital workflow.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 580-585
        • Ferraris F.
        Posterior indirect adhesive restorations (PIAR): preparation designs and adhesthetics clinical protocol.
        Int J Esthet Dent. 2017; 12: 482-502
        • González de Villaumbrosia P.
        • Martínez-Rus F.
        • García-Orejas A.
        • Salido M.P.
        • Pradíes G.
        In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 6 extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 543-550
        • Koch G.K.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        • Lee S.J.
        Accuracy in the digital workflow: from data acquisition to the digitally milled cast.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 749-754
        • Flügge T.V.
        • Schlager S.
        • Nelson K.
        • Nahles S.
        • Metzger M.C.
        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
        • Dutton E.
        • Ludlow M.
        • Mennito A.
        • et al.
        The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners.
        J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020; 32: 204-218
        • Hack G.D.
        • Patzelt S.B.M.
        Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation.
        Amer Dent Ass. 2015; 10: 1-5
        • Kruppa B.
        • Strube G.
        • Mayinger F.
        [Chapter title].
        in: [Editor] Optical measurements: Techniques and applications. [City]. Springer, 1994: 159-177
        • May L.G.
        • Kelly J.R.
        • Bottino M.A.
        • Hill T.
        Effects of cement thickness and bonding on the failure loads of CAD/CAM ceramic crowns: multi-physics FEA modeling and monotonic testing.
        Dent Mater. 2012; 28: e99-e109
        • Scherrer S.S.
        • de Rijk W.G.
        • Belser U.C.
        • Meyer J.M.
        Effect of cement film thickness on the fracture resistance of a machinable glass-ceramic.
        Dent Mater. 1994; 10: 172-177
        • Park J.-M.
        Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8: 354-362
        • Mennito A.S.
        • Evans Z.P.
        • Lauer A.W.
        • Patel R.B.
        • Ludlow M.E.
        • Renne W.G.
        Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems.
        J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30: 113-118
        • Kernen F.
        • Schlager S.
        • Seidel Alvarez V.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of intraoral scans: An in vivo study of different scanning devices.
        J Prosthet Dent. 23 Apirl 2021; ([Epub ahead of print.])