The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Clinical comparison of marginal fit of ceramic inlays between digital and conventional impressions

  • Received : 2023.10.26
  • Accepted : 2024.02.06
  • Published : 2024.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this stuldy was to compare the clinical marginal fit of CAD-CAM inlays obtained from intraoral digital impression or addition silicone impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study included 31 inlays for prosthodontics purposes of 31 patients: 15 based on intraoral digital impressions (DI group); and 16 based on a conventional impression technique (CI group). Inlays included occlusal and a non-occlusal surface. Inlays were milled in ceramic. The inlay-teeth interface was replicated by placing each inlay in its corresponding uncemented clinical preparation and taking interface impressions with silicone material from occlusal and free surfaces. Interface analysis was made using white light confocal microscopy (WLCM) (scanning area: 694 × 510 ㎛2) from the impression samples. The gap size and the inlay overextension were measured from the microscopy topographies. For analytical purposes (i.e., 95-%-confidence intervals calculations and P-value calculations), the procedure REGRESS in SUDAAN was used to account for clustering (i.e., multiple measurements). For p-value calculation, the log transformation of the dependent variables was used to normalize the distributions. RESULTS. Marginal fit values for occlusal and free surfaces were affected by the type of impression. There were no differences between surfaces (occlusal vs. free). Gap obtained for DI group was 164 ± 84 ㎛ and that for CI group was 209 ± 104 ㎛, and there were statistical differences between them (p = .041). Mean overextension values were 60 ± 59 ㎛ for DI group and 67 ± 73 ㎛ for CI group, and there were no differences between then (p = .553). CONCLUSION. Digital impression achieved inlays with higher clinical marginal fit and performed better than the conventional silicone materials.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work has been partially supported by IOIA. SL, Granada, Spain in the form of a non-restrictive grant. Authors also thanks Project PID2020.116082GB.I00 (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033) and the research group CTS-974 (Junta de Andalucia, Spain) for the economic support.

References

  1. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:297-305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(66)90082-5
  2. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Makynen A. Recent advances in dental optics - Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng 2014;54:203-21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017
  3. Logozzo S, Kilpela A, Makynen A, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G. Recent advances in dental optics - Part II: Experimental tests for a new intraoral scanner. Opt Lasers Eng 2014;54:187-96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.024
  4. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD-CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350
  5. Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:542-51.  https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.23
  6. Pol CW, Kalk W. A systematic review of ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: an update. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:566-75. 
  7. Santos MJ, Freitas MC, Azevedo LM, Santos GC Jr, Navarro MF, Francischone CE, Mondelli RF. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12-year follow-up. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1683-90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1669-z
  8. Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P, Jeannin C, Pradelle N, Seux D, Grosgogeat B. Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations: A systematic review of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:590-597.e3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.06.006
  9. Pak HS, Han JS, Lee JB, Kim SH, Yang JH. Influence of porcelain veneering on the marginal fit of Digident and Lava CAD-CAM zirconia ceramic crowns. J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2:33-8.  https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2010.2.2.33
  10. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:799-806.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1590-5
  11. Pradies G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martinez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent 2015;43:201-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.007
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Ortega R, Gonzalo E, Gomez-Polo M, Lopez-Suarez C, Suarez MJ. SEM evaluation of the precision of fit of CAD-CAM zirconia and metal-ceramic posterior crowns. Dent Mater J 2017;36:387-93.  https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-305
  15. Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD-CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:291-300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1504-6
  16. Mously HA, Finkelman M, Zandparsa R, Hirayama H. Marginal and internal adaptation of ceramic crown restorations fabricated with CAD-CAM technology and the heat-press technique. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:249-56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.017
  17. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry IL, Thomas GW, Qian F. Internal fit of pressed and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:304-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.015
  18. Keshvad A, Hooshmand T, Asefzadeh F, Khalilinejad F, Alihemmati M, Van Noort R. Marginal gap, internal fit, and fracture load of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays fabricated by CEREC inLab and hot-pressed techniques. J Prosthodont 2011;20:535-40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00745.x
  19. Swain MV, Xue J. State of the art of Micro-CT applications in dental research. Int J Oral Sci 2009;1:177-88.  https://doi.org/10.4248/IJOS09031
  20. Sener-Yamaner ID, Sertgoz A, Toz-akalin T, Ozcan M. Effect of material and fabrication technique on marginal fit and fracture resistance of adhesively luted inlays made of CAD-CAM ceramics and hybrid materials. J Adhes Sci Technol 2017;31:55-70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2016.1204144
  21. Levartovsky S, Zalis M, Pilo R, Harel N, Ganor Y, Brosh T. The effect of one-step vs. two-step impression techniques on long-term accuracy and dimensional stability when the finish line is within the gingival sulcular area. J Prosthodont 2014;23:124-33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12062
  22. Nissan J, Rosner O, Bukhari MA, Ghelfan O, Pilo R. Effect of various putty-wash impression techniques on marginal fit of cast crowns. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:e37-42.  https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.0713
  23. Caputi S, Varvara G. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and twostep, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:274-81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60061-X
  24. Michalakis KX, Stratos A, Hirayama H, Pissiotis AL, Touloumi F. Delayed setting and hygroscopic linear expansion of three gypsum products used for cast articulation. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:313-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60181-5
  25. Kale E, Yilmaz B, Seker E, Ozcelik TB. Effect of fabrication stages and cementation on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:736-741.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.01.004
  26. Magne P, Paranhos MP, Schlichting LH. Influence of material selection on the risk of inlay fracture during pre-cementation functional occlusal tapping. Dent Mater 2011;27:109-13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.09.002
  27. 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
  28. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed., Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988. 
  29. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Schaible RB, Nikolaenko SA, Naumann M. Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives versus self-etch cements. Dent Mater 2008;24:185-91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.04.003
  30. Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Comparison and evaluation of marginal and internal gaps in cobalt-chromium alloy copings fabricated using subtractive and additive manufacturing. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:56-64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.05.008
  31. Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann DR, Heydecke G. Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:328-35.e2.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.028
  32. Addi S, Hedayati-Khams A, Poya A, Sjogren G. Interface gap size of manually and CAD-CAM-manufactured ceramic inlays/onlays in vitro. J Dent 2002;30:53-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00059-8
  33. Alajaji NK, Bardwell D, Finkelman M, Ali A. Micro-CT evaluation of ceramic inlays: comparison of the marginal and internal fit of five and three axis cam systems with a heat press technique. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017;29:49-58.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12271
  34. Bottino MA, Campos F, Ramos NC, Rippe MP, Valandro LF, Melo RM. Inlays made from a hybrid material: adaptation and bond strengths. Oper Dent 2015;40:E83-91.  https://doi.org/10.2341/13-343-L
  35. da Costa JB, Pelogia F, Hagedorn B, Ferracane JL. Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D. Oper Dent 2010;35:324-9.  https://doi.org/10.2341/09-178-L
  36. Guess PC, Vagkopoulou T, Zhang Y, Wolkewitz M, Strub JR. Marginal and internal fit of heat pressed versus CAD-CAM fabricated all-ceramic onlays after exposure to thermo-mechanical fatigue. J Dent 2014;42:199-209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.10.002
  37. Homsy FR, Ozcan M, Khoury M, Majzoub ZAK. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate inlays fabricated with milling, 3D printing, and conventional technologies. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:783-90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.025
  38. Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro. J Dent 2014;42:677-83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.016
  39. Park SH, Yoo YJ, Shin YJ, Cho BH, Baek SH. Marginal and internal fit of nano-composite CAD-CAM restorations. Restor Dent Endod 2016;41:37-43.  https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.1.37
  40. 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;42:436-44.  https://doi.org/10.2341/16-093-L
  41. Schaefer O, Watts DC, Sigusch BW, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility. Dent Mater 2012;28:320-6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.12.008
  42. Vanlioglu BA, Evren B, Yildiz C, Uludamar A, Ozkan YK. Internal and marginal adaptation of pressable and computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture onlay restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:262-4. 
  43. Seo D, Yi Y, Roh B. The effect of preparation designs on the marginal and internal gaps in Cerec3 partial ceramic crowns. J Dent 2009;37:374-82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.01.008
  44. Merrill TC, Mackey T, Luc R, Lung D, Naseem A, Abduo J. Effect of chairside CAD-CAM restoration type on marginal fit accuracy: a comparison of crown, inlay and onlay restorations. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2021;29:119-27. 
  45. Ekici Z, Kilicarslan MA, Bilecenoglu B, Ocak M. Micro-CT Evaluation of the marginal and internal fit of crown and inlay restorations fabricated via different digital scanners belonging to the same CAD-CAM system. Int J Prosthodont 2021;34:381-9.  https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6822
  46. Oguz EI, Kilicarslan MA, Ocak M, Bilecenoglu B, Ekici Z. Marginal and internal fit of feldspathic ceramic CAD-CAM crowns fabricated via different extraoral digitization methods: a micro-computed tomography analysis. Odontology 2021;109:440-7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00560-6
  47. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, Qian F. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont 2014;23:610-7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12180
  48. Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT 2nd, Hovijitra S, Brown DT, Andres CJ. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time. J Prosthodont 2002;11:98-108. https://doi.org/10.1053/jopr.2002.125192