Objectives An impression accuracy study using a cadaver maxilla was performed using both prepared and intact teeth as well as palatal tissue. Materials and Methods Three crown preparations were performed on a cadaver maxilla. Seven different digital impression systems along with polyvinylsiloxane impressions were used to create digital models of the maxilla. Three‐dimensional (3D) files of the experimental models were compared to a master model. The 3D files were overlaid and analyzed using a comparison software to create color coded figures that were measured for deviations between the master and experimental models. Results For scanning tooth structure, only the Planscan was significantly less accurate than the rest of impression techniques. No significant differences in accuracy were found between models created using digital impressions and those created from traditional vinyl polysiloxane impressions with cross arch deviations ranging from 18 to 39 μm for each. Conclusions Impressions taken using all digital impression systems, save for the Planscan, were able to accurately replicate the tissues of a complete arch human maxilla. Clinical Significance Studies examining accuracy of digital impression systems have generally been performed on materials other than dental tissues. Optically, materials such as plastic and metal have properties different from enamel and dentin. This study evaluates accuracy of digital impression systems on human dentin, enamel, and soft tissues.

Background: Chairside systems are becoming more popular for fabricating full-ceramic single restorations, but there is very little knowledge about the effect of the entire workflow process on restoration fit. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) and the full internal fit (FULL) of all-ceramic crowns made by two chairside systems, Planmeca FIT and CEREC, with detailed and standard mill settings. Methods: One upper molar was prepared for an all-ceramic crown in human cadaver maxilla. Full-arch scans were made by Emerald or Omnicam four times each. Twenty-four e.max crowns were designed and milled by the Planmill 30s or 40s or CEREC MCXL mills with either detailed or standard settings. The cadaver tooth was extracted, and each crown was fixed on it and scanned by a high-resolution microCT scanner. The AMD and FULL were measured digitally in mesio-distal and bucco-lingual 2D slices. The actual and predicted times of the milling were also registered. Results: No differences were observed between detailed or standard settings in either system. The AMD was significantly higher with CEREC (132 ± 12 μm) than with either Planmill 30s (71 ± 6.9 μm) or 40s (78 ± 7.7 μm). In standard mode, the FULL was significantly higher with CEREC (224 ± 9.6 μm) than with either Planmill 30s (169 ± 8.1 μm) or 40s (178 ± 8.5 μm). There was no difference between actual and predicted time with the two Planmeca models, but with CEREC, the actual time was significantly higher than the predicted time. The 30s had significantly higher actual and predicted times compared to all other models. Across all models, the average milling time was 7.2 min less in standard mode than in detailed mode. Conclusions: All fit parameters were in an acceptable range. No differences in fit between Planmeca models suggest no effect of spindle number on accuracy. The detailed setting has no improvement in the marginal or internal fit of the restoration, yet it increases milling time.