Article Sidebar

Submitted
14 November 2024
Accepted
20 November 2024
Published
25 November 2024
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 668 Download : 177

Main Article Content

Abstract

Background: Marginal fit of restorations constructed from conventional and digital impressions should be compared specially with the advent of the digital impressioning procedures (CAD/CAM) to improve the accuracy of dental restorations. Methods: Thirty extracted human molar teeth divided into three groups Group I: (10 samples) direct tooth scan using VITA Suprinity Group II: (10 samples) die scan: using VITA Suprinity and Group III: (10 samples) control group, used conventional impression that processed to IPS emax Press crowns by the conventional procedures. All tested specimens were examined under a scanning electron microscope. Captures for marginal fit was taken at magnification factor 150×. ANOVA test was performed to detect a significant interaction between different impression techniques regarding marginal adaptation. Results: Difference between impression techniques in the same material (VITA suprinity) regarding marginal fit, when VITA Suprinity crowns were compared with IPS emax press, they recorded 91.3245µm for direct scan and 99.0060µm for indirect scan; this result had better marginal fit than conventional technique (using IPS emax press) 123.0265µm. Although within digital technique itself, the crowns made with direct scan had better marginal fit than the crowns made with indirect scan. But regarding the ANOVA test there was no statistically significant difference between tested groups I, II and III F(p)=2.481(0.103) Conclusions: The combination of the conventional impression and the indirect digitalization/CAD/CAM produced better marginal fit than conventional impression and pressed crowns and the combination of the direct digitalization and VITA Suprinity produced the most accurate marginal fit.

Keywords

Marginal adaptation CAD/CAM VITA Suprinity Direct digitalization Conventional technique

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Contemporary Dental Sciences

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
massoud, salsabil. (2024). A Comparative Analysis of Marginal Accuracy in Restorations Produced Using Digital and Traditional Fabrication Techniques . Journal of Contemporary Dental Sciences, 1(1), 8–13. Retrieved from https://jcds.qu.edu.sa/index.php/JCDS/article/view/2351
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Henkel G. A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compendium 2007;28:422-31.
  2. Hwang YC, Park Y, Kim H. The evaluation of working casts prepared from digital impressions. Oper Dent 2013;38:655-62.
  3. Frederik JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2012;17:1201-8.
  4. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:11-28.
  5. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wave front sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-9.
  6. Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:761-3.
  7. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. An overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11.
  8. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10.
  9. Belser U, MacEntee M, Richter W. Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: A scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:24-9.
  10. Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:383-8.
  11. Wettstein F, Sailer I, Roos M, Hämmerle CH. Clinical study of the internal gaps of zirconia and metal frameworks for fixed partial dentures. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:272-9.
  12. Thompson VP, Rekow DE. Dental ceramics and the molar crown testing ground. J Appl Oral Sci 2004;12:26-36.
  13. Rekow ED. Dental CAD/CAM systems: A 20-year success story. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 Suppl:5S-6.
  14. Ahrberg D, Christoph H, Ahrberg M. 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 Invest 2016;20:291-300.
  15. Mormann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 Suppl:7S-13.
  16. Brochure for products of a German company in the dental industry and systems for dental practices and dental Laboratories.
  17. Akbar JH, Petrie CS, Walker MP, Williams K, Eick JD. Marginal adaptation of CEREC 3 CAD/CAM composite crowns using two different finish line preparation designs. J Prosthodont 2006;15:155-63.
  18. Sailer I, Gottnerb J, Kanelb S, Hammerle CH. Randomized controlled clinical trial of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses: A3-year follow up. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:553-60.
  19. 19. Sorrentino R, De Simone G, Tetè S, Russo S, Zarone F. Five-year prospective clinical study of posterior three-unit zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Invest 2012;16:977-85.
  20. . Pak HS, Han JS, Lee JB, Kim SH, Yang JH. Influence of porcelain veneering on the marginal fit of Digident and Lava CAD/CAM zirconia ceramic crowns. J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2:33-8.
  21. Lee KB, Park CW, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic crowns fabricated with two different CAD/CAM systems. Dent Mater J 2008;27:422-6.
  22. Ghazy M, El-Mowafy O, Roperto R. Microleakage of porcelain and composite machined crowns cemented with self-adhesive or conventional resin cement. J Prosthodont 2010;19:523-30.
  23. Bilkhair A. Fatigue behavior and failure modes of monolithic CAD/ CAM hybrid-ceramic and all-ceramic posterior crown restorations. 2013;35-45.
  24. Pagniano RP, Seghi RR, Rosenstiel SF, Wang R, Katsube N. The effect of a layer of resin luting agent on the biaxial flexure strength of two ceramic systems. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:459-66.
  25. Keshvad A, Hooshmand T, Asefzadeh F, Khalilinejad F, Alihemmati M, van Noort R. Marginal gap, internal fit, and fracture load of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays fabricated by CEREC in lab and hot-pressed techniques. J Prosthodont 2011;20:535-40.
  26. Aboushelib MN. Fatigue and fracture resistance of zirconia crowns prepared with different finish line designs. J Prosthodont 2012;21:22-7.
  27. Trifkovic B, Budak I, Todorovic A, Hodolic J, Puskar T. Application of replica technique and SEM in accuracy measurement of ceramic crowns. Measur Sci Rev 2012;12:90-97.
  28. Jacobs MS, Windeler AS. An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:436-42.
  29. Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. 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.
  30. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64.
  31. Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D. 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;114:554-9.
  32. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:555-60.
  33. Burton JF, Hood JA, Plunkett DJ, Johnson SS. The effects of disposable and custom-made impression trays on the accuracy of impressions. J Dent 1989;17:121-3.
  34. Eames WB, Sieweke JC. Seven acrylic resins for custom tray and five putty-wash systems compared. Oper Dent 1980;5:162-7.
  35. Anadioti S, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, et al. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital