Fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Morsy, Noha; El-Kateb, Mohamed; Azer, Amir; Fathalla, Said

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.025

Cited by 29 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For CAD-CAM crowns and short-span fixed partial dentures, intraoral scanning has been shown to be more accurate than conventional impressions [29][30][31] . These studies describe marginal gaps of approximately 60 µm for CAD-CAM dental crowns produced by intraoral scanning, while conventional impressions exhibited gap values up to 183 µm 29 . In the present study, digital models obtained by conventional molding followed by benchtop scanning (group A) exhibited an overall marginal gap of 21.6 µm while the intraoral scanning produced an overall marginal gap of 39.2 µm, both significantly lower than those reported in the literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of scanning electron microscope to evaluate the marginal fit of protocol bars obtained through benchtop or intraoral digital scanners

Parizotto

Cavalli²,

Zandoná³

et al. 2022

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the marginal fit of protocol bars milled from digital models obtained by conventional molding followed by bench scanning or digital molding with an intraoral scanner. Methods: Four morse-cone implants and the mini-pillars were installed in a 3D printed mandible model (master model). Digital models of the master model were obtained by (n=10): (Group A - Conventional) conventional (analog) molding of the master model followed by bench scanning or (Group B - Digital) molding of the master model with an intraoral scanner. All-on-four protocol bars were designed and milled from the digital models for both groups and screwed into the master model. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images from the distal, central, and mesial regions of each implant were obtained and the implant-protocol bar marginal fit was measured in an image software (Image J). The mean misfit of each region was analyzed by two-factor ANOVA, Tukey test, and Student’s t-test (0,05 = 0.05). Results: The digital approach (B) showed higher misadaptation than the conventional approach (A, p < 0.05), regardless of the region evaluated. In group A, the central region showed higher maladjustment than the mesial region (p<0.05), however, there were no differences among regions of group B (p>0.05). Conclusion: The conventional method of acquiring digital models using the bench scanner produced bars for the All-On-Four protocol with better marginal fit than the digital models obtained with an intraoral scanner.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of scanning electron microscope to evaluate the marginal fit of protocol bars obtained through benchtop or intraoral digital scanners

Parizotto

Cavalli²,

Zandoná³

et al. 2022

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, quantitative data of IOS trueness and precision (reproducibility) were also collected and compared among the studies. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed by the same reviewers using an adapted scale for in vitro and in vivo studies described by a previous study [13]. Briefly, this adapted scale consisted of 12 items that should be adequately reported in non-randomized studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In consequence, recent studies have aimed at addressing the accuracy of CAD-CAM methods [9,10] and its impact on the quality of the resulting CAD-CAM prostheses [11,12]. CAD-CAM accuracy, however, can also be affected by factors associated with the image acquisition procedures [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In comparison to conventional impressions, intraoral scanning (IOS) has been considered more accurate in regard to outcomes of resulting CAD-CAM crowns and short-span fixed partial dentures [13][14][15]. A previous systematic review reported mean internal gap values varying between 30 and 154 µm for IOS and between 42 and 183 µm for conventional impressions [13]. However, most of the aforementioned studies used different CAM materials and methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intraoral scanning (IOS) technologies have been constantly developed and improved. This systematic review aimed at assessing studies in the recent literature describing factors that influence the trueness of intraoral scans. Methods: Comparative in vitro and in vivo (i.e., interventional and observational) studies that quantitatively assessed the trueness of intraoral scans and that identified factors significantly affecting IOS trueness values were considered eligible for inclusion. The PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published in the last two years (from February 2020 to February 2022). Data assessment and extraction were performed according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. Results: The present search strategy yielded 13 publications. An initial screening of the publications was performed using abstracts and key words, and after application of exclusion criteria, a total of nine studies were finally identified as eligible to be discussed. Several factors significantly affecting IOS were identified. Conclusions: Studies using current IOS technologies revealed that the device, scanning distance, operator experience, rescanning and post-processing scans, conditions of the preparations and presence of adjacent teeth are factors significantly affecting IOS trueness.

show abstract

In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This in vitro study compared the dimensional accuracy of conventional impressions (CI) with that of digital impressions (DI) in a partially edentulous maxilla. DIs were made by two intraoral scanners, Omnicam (OC) and Primescan (PS). Materials and methods CI and both intraoral scanners were used to take 30 impressions of two identical reference models. CIs were poured with type 4 gypsum and the saw-cut models were digitized. The reference models simulated a maxilla with six prepared teeth that accommodated a cross-arch fixed partial denture. Center points of five precision balls and center points at the margin level of each prepared tooth were used to detect changes in dimensions and tooth axis between the reference model and the scans. Results For DI, the largest deviations (176 µm for OC and 122 µm for PS) occurred over the cross-arch. For CI, the largest deviation (118 µm) occurred over the anterior segment. For shorter distances up to a quadrant, DI was superior to CI. For longer scan distances, DI was comparable (2 sextant and anterior segment) or inferior (cross-arch) to CI. Vertical and tooth axis deviations were significantly smaller for CI than for DI (p < 0.001). Conclusions The impression method affected the impression accuracy of a partially edentulous maxilla with prepared teeth. DI is recommended for scans up to a quadrant. Larger scan volumes are not yet suitable for fabricating a fixed partial denture because of the high scatter of accuracy values. Clinical relevance In contrast to conventional impressions, digital impressions lead to comparable or better results concerning scans up to a quadrant. Consequently, for larger scan volumes, several smaller scans should be performed or, if restoration-related not possible, it is recommended to take conventional impressions.

show abstract

Fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 29 publications

References 34 publications

Use of scanning electron microscope to evaluate the marginal fit of protocol bars obtained through benchtop or intraoral digital scanners

Use of scanning electron microscope to evaluate the marginal fit of protocol bars obtained through benchtop or intraoral digital scanners

Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update

In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About