Accuracy of Single-tooth Restorations Based on Intraoral Digital and Conventional Impressions in Patients

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2015 Feb 20

PMID 25693497

Citations 49

Authors

Moritz Boeddinghaus

Eva Sabina Breloer

Peter Rehmann

Bernd Wostmann

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the marginal fit of dental crowns based on three different intraoral digital and one conventional impression methods.

Methods: Forty-nine teeth of altogether 24 patients were prepared to be treated with full-coverage restorations. Digital impressions were made using three intraoral scanners: Sirona CEREC AC Omnicam (OCam), Heraeus Cara TRIOS and 3M Lava True Definition (TDef). Furthermore, a gypsum model based on a conventional impression (EXA'lence, GC, Tokyo, Japan) was scanned with a standard laboratory scanner (3Shape D700). Based on the dataset obtained, four zirconia copings per tooth were produced. The marginal fit of the copings in the patient's mouth was assessed employing a replica technique.

Results: Overall, seven measurement copings did not fit and, therefore, could not be assessed. The marginal gap was 88 μm (68-136 μm) [median/interquartile range] for the TDef, 112 μm (94-149 μm) for the Cara TRIOS, 113 μm (81-157 μm) for the laboratory scanner and 149 μm (114-218 μm) for the OCam. There was a statistically significant difference between the OCam and the other groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that zirconia copings based on intraoral scans and a laboratory scans of a conventional model are comparable to one another with regard to their marginal fit.

Clinical Relevance: Regarding the results of this study, the digital intraoral impression can be considered as an alternative to a conventional impression with a consecutive digital workflow when the finish line is clearly visible and it is possible to keep it dry.

Citing Articles

CAD/CAM single prosthesis: A 25 years bibliometric assessment of prosthetic outcomes.

Del Rio Silva L, Veloso D, Barao V, Mesquita M, Borges G Heliyon. 2025; 11(3):e42166.

PMID: 39968144 PMC: 11834022. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42166.

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impression Systems and CAD and CAM Workflows for Fabricating Dental Prostheses.

Gajbhiye O, Reddy M, Imran M, Narayanan N, Gangadharappa P, Dewan H J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025; 16(Suppl 4):S3734-S3736.

PMID: 39926865 PMC: 11804981. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1180_24.

Effect of cement spacer on fit accuracy and fracture strength of 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks.

Morsy N, Ghoneim M, Ibrahim Y BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):586.

PMID: 38773502 PMC: 11106921. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04341-3.

The internal and marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate endocrowns fabricated using intra and extraoral scanners: An in-vitro study.

Akhlaghian M, Khaledi A, Mosaddad S, Dabiri S, Giti R, Kadkhodae F PLoS One. 2024; 19(4):e0301361.

PMID: 38625957 PMC: 11021016. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301361.

Comparative evaluation of the marginal fit of computer-aided design-computer aided manufacturing fabricated crowns from direct and indirect digital impression - A systematic review.

Seshan R, Karthikeyan H, Rajan R, Rajakumaran A, Varadan P, Gopal R J Conserv Dent Endod. 2024; 27(2):140-145.

PMID: 38463477 PMC: 10923227. DOI: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_42_23.

References

Reich S, Uhlen S, Gozdowski S, Lohbauer U . Measurement of cement thickness under lithium disilicate crowns using an impression material technique. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 15(4):521-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0414-x. View

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 wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010; 38(7):553-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015. View

SILNESS J . Periodontal conditions in patients treated with dental bridges. 3. The relationship between the location of the crown margin and the periodontal condition. J Periodontal Res. 1970; 5(3):225-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1970.tb00721.x. View

van der Meer W, Andriessen F, Wismeijer D, Ren Y . Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One. 2012; 7(8):e43312. PMC: 3425565. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043312. View

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. PMC: 3913616. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10. View

Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A . Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro. J Dent. 2014; 42(6):677-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.016. View

Almeida e Silva J, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira L . Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 18(2):515-23. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-0987-2. View

Holmes J, Bayne S, Holland G, Sulik W . Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62(4):405-8. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90170-4. View

Flugge T, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger M . 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(3):471-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017. View

10.

Bader J, Rozier R, MCFALL Jr W, Ramsey D . Effect of crown margins on periodontal conditions in regularly attending patients. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65(1):75-9. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90053-y. View

11.

Renne W, McGill S, Forshee K, DeFee M, Mennito A . Predicting marginal fit of CAD/CAM crowns based on the presence or absence of common preparation errors. J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 108(5):310-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60183-8. View

12.

Tidehag P, Ottosson K, Sjogren G . Accuracy of ceramic restorations made using an in-office optical scanning technique: an in vitro study. Oper Dent. 2013; 39(3):308-16. DOI: 10.2341/12-309-L. View

13.

Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T . Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent. 2009; 12(1):11-28. View

14.

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(3):555-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.002. View

15.

Valderhaug J, BIRKELAND J . Periodontal conditions in patients 5 years following insertion of fixed prostheses. Pocket depth and loss of attachment. J Oral Rehabil. 1976; 3(3):237-43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1976.tb00949.x. View

16.

Euan R, Figueras-Alvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Oliver-Parra R . Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112(2):155-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.10.012. View

17.

Balkenhol M, Haunschild S, Erbe C, Wostmann B . Influence of prolonged setting time on permanent deformation of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 103(5):288-94. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60060-1. View

18.

Guth J, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D . Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 17(4):1201-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0. View

19.

Ender A, Mehl A . Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2011; 14(1):11-21. View

20.

Laurent M, Scheer P, Dejou J, Laborde G . Clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of cast crowns--validation of the silicone replica method. J Oral Rehabil. 2008; 35(2):116-22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2003.01203.x. View