The Effect of Cement and Impression Methods on the Marginal and Internal Adaptation of the Current Monolithic Blocks - 3D Scanning Evaluation

Overview

Journal J Clin Exp Dent

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Sep 2

PMID 39219836

Authors

Sebnem Yilbas

Deger Ongul

Burcin Karatasli

Bulent Sermet

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This research aimed to evaluate the marginal and internal gaps of crowns, which were produced using both digital and conventional impression techniques and cemented with various types of cement.

Material And Methods: For the full ceramic crown restoration, an anatomically prepared acrylic first molar phantom tooth (Frasaco GmbH, Germany) was scanned with Scanner S600 ARTI (Zirkonzahn). 160 PMMA analogues produced from the milling unit. Two impression methods were used: digital impressions by intraoral scanner (Aadva Intra Oral 3D Scanner, GC) and PVS impression. Cerasmart, Initial LRF Block, Zirconia Prettau and ICE Zircon monolithic blocks milled with M1 Milling Unit (Zirkonzahn). Restorations cemented with light-cured and dual-cured cements. (n = 10) Pre and post-cementation 3D images overlap was performed using Geomagic Control X (3D Systems, NC, USA). Data were analysed by using SPSS 25.0. <0.05 difference was considered significant.

Results: Digital impressions were significantly higher than PVS impressions in all groups (<0.05). A significant difference was found between the materials (<0.05). Cerasmart showed a significantly more marginal gap than the other groups. Prettau and ICE Zircon crowns with the conventional impression group showed a significantly smaller marginal gap than the others.

Conclusions: Monolithic crowns fabricated by CAD-CAM using the digital and conventional impression methods had clinically acceptable marginal and internal gaps. Crowns cemented with dual-cured cements showed significantly more marginal gap than light-cure groups. 3D scanning, Marginal accuracy, Marginal fit, Monolithic crown.

References

An S, Kim S, Choi H, Lee J, Moon H . Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112(5):1171-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.024. View

Oilo G, Evje D . Film thickness of dental luting cements. Dent Mater. 1986; 2(2):85-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(86)80058-6. View

Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann D, Heydecke G . Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116(3):328-335.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.028. View

Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P, Jeannin C, Pradelle N, Seux D . Mechanical properties and internal fit of 4 CAD-CAM block materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 119(3):384-389. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.001. View

Lauvahutanon S, Takahashi H, Shiozawa M, Iwasaki N, Asakawa Y, Oki M . Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J. 2014; 33(5):705-10. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2014-208. View

Dirxen C, Blunck U, Preissner S . Clinical performance of a new biomimetic double network material. Open Dent J. 2013; 7:118-22. PMC: 3807582. DOI: 10.2174/1874210620130904003. View

Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber H, Zandparsa R . An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems. J Prosthodont. 2016; 26(7):581-586. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12446. View

Lee K, Park C, Kim K, Kwon T . Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic crowns fabricated with two different CAD/CAM systems. Dent Mater J. 2008; 27(3):422-6. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.27.422. View

Ferrari M, Dagostin A, Fabianelli A . Marginal integrity of ceramic inlays luted with a self-curing resin system. Dent Mater. 2003; 19(4):270-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(02)00040-4. View

10.

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

11.

Anadioti E, Aquilino S, Gratton D, Holloway J, Denry I, Thomas G . 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont. 2014; 23(8):610-7. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12180. View

12.

Xu D, Xiang N, Wei B . The marginal fit of selective laser melting-fabricated metal crowns: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112(6):1437-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.018. View

13.

Molin M, Karlsson S . Five-year clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based Denzir 3-unit FPDs. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21(3):223-7. View

14.

Lin M, Munoz C, Goodacre C, Naylor W . The effect of tooth preparation form on the fit of Procera copings. Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 11(6):580-90. View

15.

Grey N, Piddock V, Wilson M . In vitro comparison of conventional crowns and a new all-ceramic system. J Dent. 1993; 21(1):47-51. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(93)90051-q. View

16.

Lawson N, Bansal R, Burgess J . Wear, strength, modulus and hardness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2016; 32(11):e275-e283. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.08.222. View

17.

Balkaya M, Cinar A, Pamuk S . Influence of firing cycles on the margin distortion of 3 all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93(4):346-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.02.003. View

18.

Tan P, Gratton D, Diaz-Arnold A, Holmes D . An in vitro comparison of vertical marginal gaps of CAD/CAM titanium and conventional cast restorations. J Prosthodont. 2008; 17(5):378-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00302.x. View

19.

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

20.

Christensen G . Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent. 1966; 16(2):297-305. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(66)90082-5. View