Evaluation of the Marginal Fit of Single Crowns Fabricated from Digital and Conventional Impressions: An In Vitro Study

Hoshyar Taha  Kak Ameen; Jwan Fateh  Abdulkareem

doi:10.56056/

Authors

Hoshyar Taha Kak Ameen BDS., KHCMS Restorative Dentistry, Sulaimani Center
Jwan Fateh Abdulkareem BDS., MSc., PhD. Assistant. Prof., Prosthodontic, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56056/

Keywords:

Conventional impression, Intraoral scanner, Marginal gap, Replica technique, Zirconia crown

Abstract

Background and objectives: Intraoral scanners replace traditional dental impressions offering more comfort and precision. This research intends to evaluate the discrepancies in the marginal gaps of single crowns produced using traditional impression techniques versus digital intraoral scanners.

Methods: This in vitro study was conducted over a one-year period from Sep 2023 to Sep 2024. The clinical procedures were carried out at Shorsh dental center in Sulaymaniyah. Fifteen extracted premolars were prepared for crowns and mounted on a 3D-printed model. Using conventional polyvinyl siloxane and intra-oral scanning with Medit i700, fifteen monolithic zirconia crowns were produced for each technique utilizing computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing. Marginal adaptation was assessed using the replica technique with silicone materials. The marginal gap was calculated by determining the distance from the edge of the crown to the finish line margin at four different angles: buccal, palatal, mesial, and distal, then examined under a stereomicroscope, and analyzed with ImageJ software.

Results: The average mean of marginal gap in digital impression was (107µm) while in conventional impression was (173µ) and the difference was statistically significance with a p-value (0.033). When comparing each aspect separately there were a significant difference in the palatal, distal, and buccal aspects, p-value was (p = 0.004, p = 0.024 and p = 0.039) but not in the mesial aspect (p = 0.2).

Conclusion: The marginal gap was less in digital impression compared to conventional and the difference was statistically significant.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Spagnuolo G, Sorrentino R. The Role of Digital Devices in Dentistry: Clinical Trends and Scientific Evidences. J Clin Med. 2020;9(6).

2. Mangano Guest Editor F. Digital Dentistry: The Revolution has Begun. Open Dent J. 2018;12:59-60.

3. Rippe MP, Monaco C, Volpe L, Bottino MA, Scotti R, Valandro LF. Different Methods for Inlay Production: Effect on Internal and Marginal Adaptation, Adjustment Time, and Contact Point. Oper Dent. 2017;42(4):436-44.

4. Chirca O, Biclesanu C, Florescu A, Stoia DI, Pangica AM, Burcea A, et al. Adhesive-Ceramic Interface Behavior in Dental Restorations. FEM Study and SEM Investigation. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(17).

5. Jacobs MS, Windeler AS. An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65(3):436-42.

6. Felton DA, Kanoy BE, Bayne SC, Wirthman GP. Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65(3):357-64.

7. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1966;16(2):297-305.

8. Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Vult von Steyern P, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(7):526-30.

9. Beuer F, Aggstaller H, Richter J, Edelhoff D, Gernet W. Influence of preparation angle on marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia crown copings. Quintessence Int. 2009;40(3):243-50.

10. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(6):715-9.

11. Rubel BS. Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51(3):629-42, vi.

12. Falahchai M, Babaee Hemmati Y, Neshandar Asli H, Emadi I. Marginal gap of monolithic zirconia endocrowns fabricated by using digital scanning and conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(2):325.e1-.e5.

13. Porrelli D, Berton F, Camurri Piloni A, Kobau I, Stacchi C, Di Lenarda R, et al. Evaluating the stability of extended-pour alginate impression materials by using an optical scanning and digital method. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(1):189.e1-.e7.

14. Sahin V, Jodati H, Evis Z. Effect of storage time on mechanical properties of extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(1):69-74.

15. Bohner LOL, De Luca Canto G, Marció BS, Laganá DC, Sesma N, Tortamano Neto P. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(5):617-23.

16. Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, Wakabayashi N. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(3):347-52.

17. Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):109-13.

18. Son K, Lee S, Kang SH, Park J, Lee KB, Jeon M, et al. A Comparison Study of Marginal and Internal Fit Assessment Methods for Fixed Dental Prostheses. J Clin Med. 2019;8(6).

19. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98(5):389-404.

20. Martínez-Rus F, Suárez MJ, Rivera B, Pradíes G. Evaluation of the absolute marginal discrepancy of zirconia-based ceramic copings. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;105(2):108-14.

21. Björn AL, Björn H, Grkovic B. Marginal fit of restorations and its relation to periodontal bone level. II. Crowns. Odontol Revy. 1970;21(3):337-46.

22. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971;131(3):107-11.

23. Krejci I, Krejci D, Lutz F. Clinical evaluation of a new pressed glass ceramic inlay material over 1.5 years. Quintessence Int. 1992;23(3):181-6.

24. Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kästner K, Walter MH. Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84(4):419-24.

25. Fransson B, Oilo G, Gjeitanger R. The fit of metal-ceramic crowns, a clinical study. Dent Mater. 1985;1(5):197-9.

26. Laurent M, Scheer P, Dejou J, Laborde G. Clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of cast crowns--validation of the silicone replica method. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35(2):116-22.

27. Alfaro DP, Ruse ND, Carvalho RM, Wyatt CC. Assessment of the Internal Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns Using Micro-CT. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(5):381-6.

28. Almeida e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araújo É, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(2):515-23.

29. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(7):1759-64.

30. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010;38(7):553-9.

31. Euán R, Figueras-Álvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Oliver-Parra R. Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(2):155-62.

32. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(3):555-60.

33. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(2):184-90.e12.