OBJECTIVES Quadrant impressions are commonly used as alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI, and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90 1 0value.T hevaluesf oralltestgroupswerestatisticallycompared.RESU LT ST heprecisionrangedf rom18.8(CI) ABSTRACTObjectives: Quadrant impressions are a commonly used alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques Materials and Methods: Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90_10 value. The values for all test groups were statistically compared. Results: The precision ranged from 18.8 µm (CI) to 58.5 µm (T-Tray), with the highest precision in the CI, T-Def, BC4.0, TRC, and TRI groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly depending on the impression method. Impression systems with single-shot capture exhibited greater deviations at the tooth surface whereas high-frame-rate impression systems differed more in gingival areas. Triple tray impressions displayed higher local deviation at the occlusal contact areas of upper and lower jaw. Conclusions:Digital quadrant impression methods achieve a level of precision, comparable to conventional impression techniques. However there are significant differences in terms of absolute values and deviation pattern.Clinical Relevance: With all tested digital impression sys...

BACKGROUND The authors evaluated the local accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) systems for single-tooth preparation impressions with an in vitro setup. METHODS The authors digitized a mandibular complete-arch model with 2 full-contour crowns and 2 multisurface inlay preparations with a highly accurate reference scanner. Teeth were made from zirconia-reinforced glass ceramic material to simulate toothlike optical behavior. Impressions were obtained either conventionally (PRESIDENT, Coltène) or digitally using the IOS systems TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 3 using insane scan speed mode (3Shape), Medit i500, Version 1.2.1 (Medit), iTero Element 2, Version 1.7 (Align Technology), CS 3600, Version 3.1.0 (Carestream Dental), CEREC Omnicam, Version 4.6.1, CEREC Omnicam, Version 5.0.0, and Primescan (Dentsply Sirona). Impressions were repeated 10 times per test group. Conventional (CO) impressions were poured with type IV gypsum and digitized with a laboratory scanner. The authors evaluated trueness and precision for preparation margin (MA) and preparation surface (SU) using 3-dimensional superimposition and 3-dimensional difference analysis method using (95% -5%) / 2 percentile values. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test. Results were presented as median (interquartile range) values in micrometers. RESULTS The authors found statistically significant differences for MA and SU among different test groups for both trueness and precision (P < .05). Median (interquartile range) trueness values ranged from 11.8 (2.0) m (CO) up to 40.5 (10.9) m (CEREC Omnicam, Version 5.0.0) for SU parameter and from 17.7 (2.6) m (CO) up to 55.9 (15.5) m (CEREC Omnicam, Version 5.0.0) for MA parameter. CONCLUSIONS IOS systems differ in terms of local accuracy. Preparation MA had higher deviations compared with preparation SU for all test groups. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Trueness and precision values for both MA and SU of single-unit preparations are equal or close to CO impression for several IOS systems.

This study demonstrates particle-filled composite resin CAD/CAM restorations having a clinical success rate of 85.7% after 24 months. Adhesive bonding procedures need to be ensured carefully. A longer clinical evaluation period is necessary to draw further conclusions.

Statistically significant differences were found for different CAD/CAM materials if the CAM procedure was identical. Within the limitations of this study, the choice of CAD/CAM material may influence the fitting accuracy of CAD/CAM-fabricated restorations.