» Articles » PMID: 36984061

Evaluation of Marginal and Internal Fit of Ceramic Laminate Veneers Fabricated with Five Intraoral Scanners and Indirect Digitization

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2023 Mar 29
PMID 36984061
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The long-term success of ceramic laminate veneers (CLVs) is influenced by the marginal and internal fit of the restorations. However, studies comparing the fit of CLVs using different intraoral scanners or the indirect digitization technique are lacking. The purpose of this study was therefore to assess the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-milled CLVs using different intraoral scanners and the indirect digitalization technique. An ivorine typodont maxillary left-central incisor was prepared; the tooth and the neighboring teeth were scanned and used as a template to print ninety 3D partial models. Thereafter, ceramic laminate veneers (CLVs) (N = 90) were milled from IPS-Emax CAD blocks and divided into six equal groups (15 specimens each) according to the type of intraoral scanner (IOS), as follows: Omnicam IOS, SC3600 IOS, Trios 3 IOS, Emerald IOS, I500 IOS. Fifteen further CLVs were fabricated using the conventional indirect digitalization technique. After cementation on the resin dies and embedding in clear epoxy resin, specimens were sectioned inciso-gingivally and mesio-distally. At the incisal and cervical positions, the marginal discrepancy was measured and evaluated in addition to the internal gap at six locations using SEM (200×). Differences between gap measurements among the six groups were determined using ANOVA. Games-Howell multiple comparisons for homogenous variances and LSD multiple comparisons for non-homogenous variances were used with 95% confidence intervals. The significance level was set at 0.05. The lowest mean absolute marginal gap at the incisal margins (AMGI) was recorded for Omnicam group (203.28 ± 80.14) µm, while the highest mean absolute marginal gap at the cervical margins (AMGC) was recorded for Omnicam group (147.16 ± 59.78) µm. The mean AMGC was reported to be significantly different between the conventional technique (146.75 ± 38.43) µm and Trios 3 (91.86 ± (35.51) µm; = 0.001) and between Emerald (112.37 ± (50.31) µm; = 0.042) and I500 (86.95 ± (41.55) µm; < 0.001). The mean MGI was found to be significantly different between the conventional technique (114.11 ± (43.45) µm and I500 group (186.99 ± (73.84) µm) only ( = 0.035). However, no significant differences were found in the mean MGI between all types of IOSs. The means of AMG and MG were significantly different at incisal or cervical areas between the conventional technique and IOSs and within the scanner groups ( > 0.05). Marginal gaps were higher in the incisal region compared to the cervical region with both the indirect digitization technique and the IOSs. Ceramic laminate veneers (CLVs) fabricated using IOSs produced overall internal and marginal fit adaptation results comparable to CLVs fabricated from the indirect digitalization method, and both techniques produced clinically acceptable results.

Citing Articles

Comparative analysis of the fit quality of monolithic zirconia veneers produced through traditional and digital workflows using silicone replica technique: an in vitro study.

Doan T, Nguyen T, Pham V, Chotprasert N, Vu C BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1566.

PMID: 39732646 PMC: 11682616. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-05361-9.


A Comparison of Internal, Marginal, and Incisal Gaps in Zirconia Laminates Fabricated Using Subtractive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Methods.

Noh M, Kim J Biomimetics (Basel). 2024; 9(12).

PMID: 39727732 PMC: 11673710. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics9120728.


Marginal Discrepancy and Internal Fit of 3D-Printed Versus Milled Laminate Veneers: An In Vitro Study.

Daghrery A, Lunkad H, Mobarki K, Alhazmi M, Khubrani H, Vinothkumar T J Funct Biomater. 2024; 15(11).

PMID: 39590542 PMC: 11595794. DOI: 10.3390/jfb15110338.


Evaluation of the ceramic laminate veneer-tooth interface after different resin cement excess removal techniques.

Otani A, Pattussi M, Spohr A, Grossi M Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 28(2):136.

PMID: 38319457 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-05536-2.


An comparison of the marginal fit of provisional crowns using the virtual tooth preparation workflow against the traditional technique.

Shenoy A, Maiti S, Nallaswamy D, Keskar V J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2023; 23(4):391-397.

PMID: 37861617 PMC: 10705005. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_273_23.

References
1.
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

2.
Revilla-Leon M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascon W, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M . Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 124(3):372-378. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003. View

3.
Al Hamad K, Al Quran F, AlJalam S, Baba N . Comparison of the Accuracy of Fit of Metal, Zirconia, and Lithium Disilicate Crowns Made from Different Manufacturing Techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28(5):497-503. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13029. View

4.
Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G . Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 20(4):799-806. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1590-5. View

5.
McLean J, VON Fraunhofer J . The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971; 131(3):107-11. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708. View