Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners

Abdel‐Azim, Tamer; Rogers, Kelly; Elathamna, Eiad; Zandinejad, Amirali; Metz, Michael J.; Morton, Dean

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.001

Cited by 150 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

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

“…and iTero). 11 The impression technique was found to have no significant effect on the marginal fit. Hence, digital and conventional impressions resulted in CAD/CAM crowns with similar marginal fit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] A recent systematic review assessed the results of the marginal fit for crowns fabricated with 17 different fabrication processes. 16 The analysis revealed a wide range in the results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit

Zeltner

Sailer

Mühlemann

et al. 2017

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Trials comparing the overall performance of digital with that of conventional workflows in restorative dentistry are needed. PURPOSE The purpose of the third part of a series of investigations was to test whether the marginal and internal fit of monolithic crowns fabricated with fully digital workflows differed from that of crowns fabricated with the conventional workflow. MATERIAL AND METHODS In each of 10 participants, 5 monolithic lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated for the same abutment tooth according to a randomly generated sequence. Digital workflows were applied for the fabrication of 4 crowns using the Lava, iTero, Cerec inLab, and Cerec infinident systems. The conventional workflow included a polyvinyl siloxane impression, manual waxing, and heat-press technique. The discrepancy between the crown and the tooth was registered using the replica technique with polyvinyl siloxane material. The dimensions of the marginal discrepancy (Discrepancymarginal) and the internal discrepancy in 4 different regions of interest (Discrepancyshoulder, Discrepancyaxial, Discrepancycusp, and Discrepancyocclusal) were assessed using light microscopy. Post hoc Student t test with Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences (=.05). RESULTS Discrepancymarginal was 83.6 ±51.1 m for the Cerec infinident, 90.4 ±66.1 m for the conventional, 94.3 ±58.3 m for the Lava, 127.8 ±58.3 m for the iTero, and 141.5 ±106.2 m for the Cerec inLab workflow. The differences between the treatment modalities were not statistically significant (P>.05). Discrepancyshoulder was 82.2 ±42.4 m for the Cerec infinident, 97.2 ±63.8 m for the conventional, 103.4 ±52.0 m for the Lava, 133.5 ±73.0 m for the iTero, and 140.0 ±86.6 m for the Cerec inLab workflow. Only the differences between the Cerec infinident and the Cerec inLab were statistically significant (P=.036). The conventionally fabricated crowns revealed significantly lower values in Discrepancycusp and Discrepancyocclusal than all the crowns fabricated with digital workflows (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS In terms of marginal crown fit, no significant differences were found between the conventional and digital workflows for the fabrication of monolithic lithium disilicate crowns. In the occlusal regions, the conventionally manufactured crowns revealed better fit than the digitally fabricated crowns. Chairside milling resulted in less favorable crown fit than centralized milling production. Purpose. The purpose of the fourth part of a series of investigations was to test whether the marginal and internal fit of monolithic crowns fabricated with fully digital workflows differed from that of crowns fabricated with the conventional workflow. Material and methods.In each of 10 participants, 5 monolithic lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated for the same abutment tooth according to a randomly generated sequence.Digital workflows were applied for the fabrication of 4 crowns with Lava, iTero, Cerec inLab, and Cerec infinident systems. The conventional workflow ...

show abstract

“…Both conventional and digital impression techniques allow for the fabrication of lithium disilicate restorations but the results in terms of marginal accuracy are still controversial [46–51]. …”

Section: Impression Techniques and Accuracy Of Fitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and no statistically significant differences were noticed among the different approaches [51]. Differently, the results of a recent in vitro study suggested that pressed and milled lithium disilicate SCs from digital impressions had a better internal fit to the abutment tooth than pressed SCs from polyvinylsiloxane impressions in terms of total volume of internal space, average thickness of internal space, and percentage of internal space at or below 120 μ m [50].…”

Section: Impression Techniques and Accuracy Of Fitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Digitally Oriented Materials”: Focus on Lithium Disilicate Ceramics

Zarone

Ferrari

Mangano³

et al. 2016

International Journal of Dentistry

124

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper was aimed at reporting the state of the art about lithium disilicate ceramics. The physical, mechanical, and optical properties of this material were reviewed as well as the manufacturing processes, the results of in vitro and in vivo investigations related to survival and success rates over time, and hints for the clinical indications in the light of the latest literature data. Due to excellent optical properties, high mechanical resistance, restorative versatility, and different manufacturing techniques, lithium disilicate can be considered to date one of the most promising dental materials in Digital Dentistry.

show abstract

Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners

Cited by 150 publications

References 32 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

Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit

“Digitally Oriented Materials”: Focus on Lithium Disilicate Ceramics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About