The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

In-vitro evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated using digital scanning technologies

  • Ozal, Cise (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University) ;
  • Ulusoy, Mutahhar (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University)
  • Received : 2021.08.11
  • Accepted : 2021.11.15
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations that were designed by using the data obtained with the aid of intraoral and laboratory scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS. For the fabrication of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations using impressions taken from the maxillary master cast, plaster cast was created and scanned in laboratory scanners (InEos X5 and D900L). The main cast was also scanned with different intraoral scanners (Omnicam [OMNI], Primescan [PS], Trios 3 [T3], Trios 4 [T4]) (n = 12 per group). Zirconia fixed partial dentures were virtually designed, produced from presintered block, and subsequently sintered. Marginal and internal discrepancy values (in ㎛) were measured by using silicone replica method under stereomicroscope. Data were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis tests (P<.05). RESULTS. In terms of marginal adaptation, the measurements on the canine tooth indicated better performance with intraoral scanners than those in laboratory scanners, but there was no difference among intraoral scanners (P<.05). In the premolar tooth, PS had the lowest marginal (86.9 ± 19.2 ㎛) and axial (92.4 ± 14.8 ㎛), and T4 had the lowest axio-occlusal (89.4 ± 15.6 ㎛) and occlusal (89.1 ± 13.9 ㎛) discrepancy value. In both canine and premolar teeth, the D900L was found to be the most marginally and internally inconsistent scanner. CONCLUSION. Within the limits of the study, marginal and internal discrepancy values were generally lower in intraoral scanners than in laboratory scanners. Marginal discrepancy values of scanners were clinically acceptable (< 120 ㎛), except D900L.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Assoc. Prof. Ozay Onoral and Asst. Prof. Mehmet Gagari Caymaz for their assistance in preparing this manuscript.

References

  1. Marchack BW, Sato S, Marchack CB, White SN. Complete and partial contour zirconia designs for crowns and fixed dental prostheses: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:145-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60112-1
  2. Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Zavanelli RA, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Coelho PG. Reliability of metalloceramic and zirconia-based ceramic crowns. J Dent Res 2010;89:1051-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510375826
  3. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.44
  4. Memari Y, Mohajerfar M, Armin A, Kamalian F, Rezayani V, Beyabanaki E. Marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns made by different impression methods: a literature review. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e536-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12800
  5. 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;38:553-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015
  6. Galhano GA, Pellizzer EP, Mazaro JV. Optical impression systems for CAD-CAM restorations. J Craniofac Surg 2012;23:e575-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31826b8043
  7. Park GH, Son K, Lee KB. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:803-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.014
  8. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:11-9.
  9. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont 2018;27:35-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12527
  10. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0792-7
  11. Chen Y, Zhai Z, Li H, Yamada S, Matsuoka T, Ono S, Nakano T. Influence of liquid on the tooth surface on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2021 Apr 7. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13358.
  12. Erozan C, Ozan O. Evaluation of the precision of different intraoral scanner-Computer Aided Design (CAD) software combinations in digital dentistry. Med Sci Monit 2020;26:e918529.
  13. Oh KC, Park J, Moon HS. Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: A new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data. J Prosthodont 2020;29:518-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13158
  14. Son K, Lee KB. Effect of finish line locations of tooth preparation on the accuracy of intraoral scanners. Int J Comput Dent 2021;24:29-40.
  15. Revilla-Leon M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascon W, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:372-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003
  16. Kang B, Son K, Lee K. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners and two laboratory scanners for a complete arch: A comparative in vitro study. Appl Sci 2020;10:74. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010074
  17. Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:354-62. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354
  18. Contrepois M, Soenen A, Bartala M, Laviole O. Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110:447-54.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.003
  19. Goldberg AJ. Deterioration of restorative materials and the risk for secondary caries. Adv Dent Res 1990;4:14-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374900040010201
  20. Rodiger M, Heinitz A, Burgers R, Rinke S. Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions-a clinical comparative study. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:579-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1924-y
  21. Onoral O, Ulusoy M, Seker E, Etikan I. Influence of repeated firings on marginal, axial, axio-occlusal, and occlusal fit of metal-ceramic restorations fabricated with different techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:415-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.022
  22. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708
  23. Holmes JR, Sulik WD, Holland GA, Bayne SC. Marginal fit of castable ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:594-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90153-2
  24. Schaefer O, Kuepper H, Sigusch BW, Thompson GA, Hefti AF, Guentsch A. Three-dimensional fit of lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro. J Dent 2013;41:271-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.014
  25. Hung SH, Hung KS, Eick JD, Chappell RP. Marginal fit of porcelain-fused-to-metal and two types of ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:26-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90260-J
  26. Arezoobakhsh A, Shayegh SS, Jamali Ghomi A, Hakimaneh SMR. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated with CAD-CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:105-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.023
  27. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:362-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.018
  28. Bosniac P, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Comparison of an indirect impression scanning system and two direct intraoral scanning systems in vivo. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:2421-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2679-4
  29. Lee B, Oh KC, Haam D, Lee JH, Moon HS. Evaluation of the fit of zirconia copings fabricated by direct and indirect digital scanning procedures. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:225-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.08.003
  30. Park JS, Lim YJ, Kim B, Kim MJ, Kwon HB. Clinical Evaluation of time efficiency and fit accuracy of lithium disilicate single crowns between conventional and digital impression. Materials (Basel) 2020;13:5467. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235467
  31. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:405-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90170-4
  32. Dutton E, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Culp A, Kessler R, Renne W. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020;32:204-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12528
  33. Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:554-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.001
  34. Kocaagaoglu H, Kilinc HI, Albayrak H. Effect of digital impressions and production protocols on the adaptation of zirconia copings. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:102-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.004
  35. Rinke S, Fornefett D, Gersdorff N, Lange K, Roediger M. Multifactorial analysis of the impact of different manufacturing processes on the marginal fit of zirconia copings. Dent Mater J 2012;31:601-9. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2012-017
  36. Benic GI, Sailer I, Zeltner M, Gutermann JN, Ozcan M, Muhlemann S. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part III: Marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:426-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.014
  37. Almeida e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, Guth JF. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:515-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0987-2
  38. Malaguti G, Rossi R, Marziali B, Esposito A, Bruno G, Dariol C, DI Fiore A. In vitro evaluation of prosthodontic impression on natural dentition: a comparison between traditional and digital techniques. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2017;9:21-7. https://doi.org/10.11138/orl/2016.9.1S.021
  39. Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradies G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:2403-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1714-6
  40. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Ryden J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 2018;69:110-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006
  41. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2027-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7
  42. Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flugge T, Fokas G, Tahmaseb A, Bechelli D, Bohner L, Bornstein M, Burgoyne A, Caram S, Carmichael R, Chen CY, Coucke W, Derksen W, Donos N, El Kholy K, Evans C, Fehmer V, Fickl S, Fragola G, Gimenez Gonzales B, Gholami H, Hashim D, Hui Y, Kokat A, Vazouras K, Kuhl S, Lanis A, Leesungbok R, van der Meer J, Liu Z, Sato T, De Souza A, Scarfe WC, Tosta M, van Zyl P, Vach K, Vaughn V, Vucetic M, Wang P, Wen B, Wu V. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:436-42.
  43. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont 2017;26:581-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12446
  44. Shimizu S, Shinya A, Kuroda S, Gomi H. The accuracy of the CAD system using intraoral and extraoral scanners for designing of fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater J 2017;36:402-7. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-326
  45. Ozcelik TB, Yilmaz B, Seker E, Shah K. Marginal adaptation of provisional CAD/CAM restorations fabricated using various simulated digital cement space settings. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:1064-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6271
  46. Euan R, Figueras-Alvarez 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;112:155-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.10.012
  47. Suzuki S, Katsuta Y, Ueda K, Watanabe F. Marginal and internal fit of three-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses: Effects of prosthesis design, cement space, and zirconia type. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:460-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.12.005
  48. Kokubo Y, Tsumita M, Kano T, Sakurai S, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of zirconia all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthodont Res 2011;55:40-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2010.09.001
  49. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed., Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1997. p. 120.
  50. Komine F, Iwai T, Kobayashi K, Matsumura H. Marginal and internal adaptation of zirconium dioxide ceramic copings and crowns with different finish line designs. Dent Mater J 2007;26:659-64. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.26.659