Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions

Zarauz, Cristina; Valverde, Araceli; Martínez-Rus, Francisco; Hassan, Bassam; Pradíes, Guillermo

doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1590-5

Cited by 81 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The choice of impression type thus does not influence the precision of the zirconia crown's adaptation. This is in line with previously published results 891011…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Adaptation of zirconia crowns created by conventional versus optical impression:in vitrostudy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to compare the precision of optical impression (Trios, 3Shape) versus that of conventional impression (Imprint IV, 3M-ESPE) with three different margins (shoulder, chamfer, and knife-edge) on Frasaco teeth.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe sample comprised of 60 zirconia half-crowns, divided into six groups according to the type of impression and margin. Scanning electron microscopy enabled us to analyze the gap between the zirconia crowns and the Frasaco teeth, using ImageJ software, based on eight reproducible and standardized measuring points.RESULTSNo statistically significant difference was found between conventional impressions and optical impressions, except for two of the eight points. A statistically significant difference was observed between the three margin types; the chamfer and knife-edge finishing lines appeared to offer better adaptation results than the shoulder margin.CONCLUSIONZirconia crowns created from optical impression and those created from conventional impression present similar adaptation. While offering identical results, the former have many advantages. In view of our findings, we believe the chamfer margin should be favored.

show abstract

“…The choice of impression type thus does not influence the precision of the zirconia crown's adaptation. This is in line with previously published results 891011…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Adaptation of zirconia crowns created by conventional versus optical impression:in vitrostudy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Difference in parameters such as the considered cement space, which was 40 μ in our study and 50 μ in the study by Berrendero et al, can also explain the difference in the results. Some clinical studies reported greater marginal gap compared to our values, which may be attributed to the different types of restorations. According to Pak et al, addition of porcelain to coping caused distortion and decreased the fit of restorations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall size of internal gap in our study agreed with that in many clinical studies . Our value was lower than that reported in some other studies, which may be due to the use of coating powder spray before scanning in some digital systems such as Lava C.O.S. The thickness of this layer, could affect the restoration fit .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many in vitro and clinical studies have evaluated and compared the accuracy of digital and conventional impressions and restorations . In these studies, although finish lines in some teeth were extended subgingivally, the effect of finish line position on the results was not considered . To the best of the authors' knowledge, no previous study has compared the accuracy of conventional and digital impressions for fabrication of tooth‐supported restorations with subgingival and supragingival finish lines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Koulivand

Ghodsi

Siadat

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…All ceramic, CAD/CAM full coverage restorations are becoming increasingly popular as this method provides expedient prosthesis fabrication with acceptable marginal accuracy . Compared to traditional laboratory‐fabricated cast restorations, CAD/CAM‐generated restorations rely more on adhesive technology, which proponents claim can compensate for loss of traditionally recommended preparation features .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture resistance of all‐ceramic crowns based on different preparation designs for restoring endodontically treated molars

Krance

DuVall²,

Brewster³

et al. 2018

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of this in vitro test suggests that when suitable tooth structure and sufficient interact restorative space exists, endodontically treated molars restored with lithium disilicate complete crowns based on preparations with amalgam core foundations containing 1 mm and 2 mm of dentin axial wall height could serve as a suitable restorative option that may provide more recoverable failure modes than endocrown restorations.

show abstract

Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions

Abstract: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16111844.

Cited by 81 publications

References 25 publications

Adaptation of zirconia crowns created by conventional versus optical impression:in vitrostudy

Adaptation of zirconia crowns created by conventional versus optical impression:in vitrostudy

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

Fracture resistance of all‐ceramic crowns based on different preparation designs for restoring endodontically treated molars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About