Marginal and internal fit of full ceramic crowns milled using CADCAM systems on cadaver full arch scans

Vág, János; Nagy, Z; Bocklet, Christopher; Kiss, Tamás; Nagy, Ákos; Simon, Botond; Mikolicz, Ákos; Renne, Walter

doi:10.1186/s12903-020-01181-9

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many systems include chairside design software for prosthetic workflows. The first chairside CAD/CAM system was the CEREC; however, 3Shape and Planmeca systems also have their own design programs for chairside prosthetic workflows (e.g., inlays, onlays, crowns, short bridges) [ 59 , 72 , 73 ]. Our rating system is a uniform ranking scheme for all IOSs, but it is important to separately consider the findings of each assessment domain in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devices. This validation study aimed to compare different IOSs based on objective and comprehensive parameters. Methods In this study, 12 different IOSs were examined. The IOSs that were tested in this study in order of their delivery included the 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®, Planmeca Emerald®, Straumann DWIO®, GC Aadva®, iTero Element 2®, CEREC Primescan®, Medit i500®, 3Shape Trios 4 Move®, Carestream CS3600®, 3Shape Trios 4 Pod®, Carestream CS3700®, and Planmeca Emerald S®. IOSs were evaluated in four different ways: (a)summary chart, (b)comparative assessment, (c)data based on in vitro measurements and (d)accuracy measurements. A scoring system was created to enable an objective rating of IOSs. Results The differences among IOSs were demonstrated in point scores (summary chart[max. 10 points] + weight of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + circumference of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + in vitro scanning time[max. 2.5 points] + pauses in data capture[max. 2.5 points] + accuracy[max. 10 points] = summary[max. 30 points]). Trios 4 Pod achieved the greatest cumulative score (23.37 points), furthermore it earned the highest points for summary chart and scanning speed. Regarding scanning continuity, the best-performing IOSs, which tied at identical point scores, were the Trios 3 and 4 Pod, Trios 4 Move, iTero Element 2, CS3600 and CS3700. The most accurate IOS was the CEREC Primescan, although it earned the lowest points of the comparative assessment (heaviest IOS). GC Aadva scored 5.73 points of a maximum of 30 points, which was the poorest result in this study. Conclusion The scoring system reflects the differences among IOS devices based on the evaluated objective parameters and can be used to help clinicians select the right IOS device. The new generations of IOSs have more special properties, and their accuracy is higher than the previous versions. Trial registration The permission for this study was granted by University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number:108/2019).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The same is reported by Persson,Yang,Miura,Souza,and Ortorpa et al [1,[22][23][24][25][26]. In the CAD/CAM restorations, the precision of the data acquisition system, the capability to combine and match images, the designing software, the milling machine, and the machine's bur size must be added to the list [10,27,28]. The size of the milling bur is important because the width of the intaglio surface could not be smaller than the smallest bur of the milling machine [29,30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Effect of Die Materials on Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Zirconia Copings: An In Vitro Study

Al-Mussawi¹,

Farid²,

Haider³

2021

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Close adaptation of cemented CAD/CAM restorations to their abutments is highly dependent on precise impressions and accurate replicas of teeth and adjacent oral tissues. This in-vitro study compared the effect of two die materials, as physical replicas of prepared teeth, on internal and marginal adaptations of zirconia copings to their corresponding abutments. Materials and Methods: A virtual model simulating a prepared premolar was designed and used for the milling of thirty identical metal models. Impression was taken of all models by Polyvinyl siloxane material. Fifteen impressions were poured in with Type IV stone and the other fifteen with polyurethane resin to make dies. All dies were scanned, and for each of them, zirconia coping was designed and milled. The copings were cemented to their corresponding metal models. Marginal gap between each coping and its metal model was measured at 20 points with a stereomicroscope (×60). Then the specimens were sectioned into two halves, and the internal gap was measured at seven points, including right and left cervico-axial, mid-axial, occluso-axial, and mid-occlusal. The data were analyzed with an independent T-test and repeated measure ANOVA at a 95% confidence level (p<0.05). Results: Mean value of marginal gap for Type IV stone and Exakto-Form groups were 54.31 ± 4.11 μm and 56.25 ± 4.24 μm, respectively. Mean values of the internal gaps for both groups ranged from 48 μm to 120 μm. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, an internal and marginal adaptation of zirconia copings designed on digitized polyurethane and Type IV stone dies are clinically acceptable.

show abstract

“…When comparing the results of this study with the published articles on the accuracy of conventional and digital impressions, it was found that our study was consistent with a study conducted by János Vág et al on the upper jaw of a full-tooth human cadaver which found that conventional impressions were more accurate than digital impressions. Despite the different intraoral scanning systems used [ 26 ]. Our results correspond to Ender's study, as it found that the deviation mean of the conventional impressions of (53 ± 2 μm) was significantly different from that of the Trios 3 (μ8 ± 156) and CS 3600 (29 ± 365) intraoral scanners; however, it was significantly lower than the values for element 1 (531 ± 26), element 2 (246 ± 11), emerald (317 ± 13), Omnicam (174 ± 11), and Planscan (903 ± 49) [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Methods of Obtaining Full-Arch Dental Impression (In Vitro Study)

Husein¹,

Morad²,

Kanout³

2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current gold standard is a conventional impression made with various impression materials and trays and results in a gypsum cast. With the development of milling and printing materials in dentistry, especially zirconia, a digital model has become increasingly important. ObjectivesTo compare the accuracy of the conventional impression scan (CIS), gypsum cast scan (GCS), and digital impression scan (DIS) to obtain a full-arch digital model. Materials and methodsA resin reference cast was fabricated. It was scanned by an extra-oral scanner to measure its accuracy as a reference scanner. Eight conventional impressions of the reference cast were taken by polyvinyl siloxane and scanned. After that, they were poured with type IV dental stones and scanned too. The reference cast was scanned by an intraoral scanner eight separate times. Digital models within each group were superimposed individually to measure precision. In addition, each model from each group was superimposed on one model from the reference scanner precision group to measure trueness. ResultsThe reference scanner showed the highest accuracy among groups with a precision of 1.5±0.8 µm and a trueness of 5.5±1.9 µm (P<0.006), while precision values of gypsum cast were 8.1±1.7 µm and trueness values were 9.3±2.6 µm (P<0.012). Conventional impressions showed a precision of 14.06±2.01 µm and a trueness of 16.15±2.07 µm (P<0.012). Digital impressions were the least accurate among the groups, as precision values were 38.22±15.23 μm and trueness values were 35.19±8.7 μm (P<0.006). ConclusionThe gypsum cast scans showed the highest accuracy, followed by the conventional impression scans, and finally the digital impression scans, with no clinical significance.

show abstract

Marginal and internal fit of full ceramic crowns milled using CADCAM systems on cadaver full arch scans

Cited by 24 publications

References 76 publications

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

Effect of Die Materials on Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Zirconia Copings: An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Methods of Obtaining Full-Arch Dental Impression (In Vitro Study)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About