A clinical comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques regarding finish line locations and impression time

Abstract

Objective This study compared digital and conventional impression techniques regarding impression time, frequency of adjustments, and adaptation of cobalt‐chromium (Co‐Cr) copings with supragingival and subgingival finish lines. Materials and Methods Thirty premolars prepared for single‐unit metal‐ceramic restorations with supragingival and subgingival finish lines (n = 15). Conventional impression and digital scan of prepared teeth were made. Using computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system the copings were produced by a milling machine from Co‐Cr blocks and internal and marginal discrepancies were measured using silicone replica technique. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and Mann‐Whitney test (alpha = .05). Results The impression technique had a significant effect on the magnitude of gap (P < .001). The internal and marginal gaps in the digital technique (49.43 μ and 60.07 μ, respectively) were significantly lower than the values in the conventional method (91.88 μ and 96.96 μ, respectively—P < .001). Finish line positions had no significant effect on the fit and marginal gap of copings (P = .54 and .243, respectively). The mean impression time (19′:27″ in conventional technique and 10′:31″ in digital technique) was significantly shorter (P < .001) and the mean frequency of adjustments (2.2 times for conventional and 1.3 times for digital technique) was significantly lower in the digital technique (P < .001). The gingival biotype (thick or thin) had no significant effect on marginal and internal fit (P = .052 and .319, respectively). Conclusion The digital technique was superior in terms of fit, impression time, and frequency of adjustments. Finish line positions had no significant effect on the fit of copings. Clinical Significance Using intraoral scanner promotes the fits of restorations in supragingival and subgingival finish lines.

Influence of Preparation Design, Marginal Gingiva Location, and Tooth Morphology on the Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Full-Crown Restorations: An In Vitro Investigation

“…Divergent literature states that the supra-and epigingival margins can be scanned without significant differences. In that mentioned in vitro study, supragingival finishing lines were made visible by gingival retraction [23]. The significant difference between the epi-and supragingival margins could be attributed to the absence of gingival retraction.…”

Composite Resin Crown Restoration on Microdontia Maxillary Lateralis Incisor (Case Report)

“…Bentuk dan letak finishing line merupakan penentu adaptasi tepi restorasi yang baik. 20 Pada kasus ini finishing line dibuat menggunakan bur round end fissure diamond bur sehingga membentuk finishing line berbentuk chamfer. Bentuk ini dipilih karena menunjukkan tingkat kebocoran tepi yang lebih rendah dibandingkan bentuk preparasi shoulder.…”

Versorgung junger Patienten mit kraniofazialen Anomalien mittels digitaler Technologie im Tübinger Konzept

“…Die RS definiert sich anhand der Trias mandibuläre Retro/Mikrognathie und Glossoptose, welche eine Einengung der oberen Atemwege bedingt. In 80-90 % der Fälle liegt eine Spalte des Gaumens vor [10,11] [17,18].…”