In Vitro Comparison of Marginal and Internal Fit of Zirconia Copings Fabricated by One CAD/CAM System with Two Different Scanners
Objectives: Marginal and internal fit of restorations are two important clinical factors for assessing the quality and durability of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated monolithic zirconia restorations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM zirconia crowns with two different scanners (i3D scanner and 3Shape D700).
Materials and Methods: Twelve extracted sound human posterior teeth were prepared for full zirconia crowns. Two different extraoral scanners namely i3D scanner and 3Shape D700 were used to digitize type IV gypsum casts poured from impressions. The crowns were milled from presintered monolithic zirconia blocks by a 5-axis milling machine. The replica technique and MIP4 microscopic image analysis software were utilized to measure the marginal and internal fit by a stereomicroscope at ×40 magnification. The collected data were analyzed by paired t-test.
Results: The mean marginal gap was 203.62 μm with 3Shape D700 scanner and 241.07 μm with i3D scanner. The mean internal gap was 192.30 μm with 3Shape D700 scanner and 196.06 μm with i3D scanner. The results of paired t-test indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the two scanners in marginal fit (P=0.04); while, there was no statistically significant difference in internal fit (P=0.761).
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the results showed that type of extraoral scanner affected the marginal fit of CAD/CAM fabricated crowns; however, it did not have a significant effect on their internal fit.
2. Kasraei S, Yarmohammadi E, Farhadian M, Malek M. Effect of proteolytic agents on microleakage of etch and rinse adhesive systems. Braz J Oral Sci. 2017 Dec;16:1-11.
3. Kasraei S, Yarmohammadi E, Ghazizadeh MV. Microshear bond strength of OptiBond All-in-One self-adhesive agent to Er:YAG laser treated enamel after thermocycling and water storage. J Lasers Med Sci. 2016 Jul;7(3):152-8.
4. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont. 2018 Jan;27(1):35-41.
5. Kirsch C, Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. Trueness of four different milling procedures used in dental CAD/CAM systems. Clin oral investig. 2017 Mar;21(2):551-8.
6. Tapie L, Lebon N, Mawussi B, Fron CH, Duret F, Attal JP. Understanding dental CAD/CAM for restorations--the digital workflow from a mechanical engineering viewpoint. Int J Comput Dent. 2014 Dec;18(1):21-44.
7. Tinschert J, Natt G, Hassenpflug S, Spiekermann H. Status of current CAD/CAM technology in dental medicine. Int J Comput Dent. 2004 Jan;7(1):25-45.
8. Kollmuss M, Kist S, Goeke JE, Hickel R, Huth KC. Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 May;20(4):791-7.
9. 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 Jan;28(1):44-56.
10. Santos Jr GC, Santos Jr MJ, Rizkalla AS, Madani DA, El-Mowafy O. Overview of CEREC CAD/CAM chairside system. Gen Dent. 2013 Jan-Feb;61(1):36-40.
11. Andreiotelli M, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G. Digital data management for CAD/CAM technology. An update of current systems. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2013 Mar;21(1):9-15.
12. Van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater J. 2012 Jan;28(1):3-12.
13. Fasbinder DJ. Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent. 2013 Jun;26(3):115-20.
14. Shamseddine L, Mortada R, Rifai K, Chidiac JJ. Marginal and internal fit of pressed ceramic crowns made from conventional and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing wax patterns: An in vitro comparison. J Prosthet Dent 2016 Mar;116(2):242-8.
15. 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 May;20(4):799-806.
16. 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 Aug;116(2):184-90.
17. de Paula Silveira AC, Chaves SB, Hilgert LA, Ribeiro AP. Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated composite resin and ceramic crowns scanned by 2 intraoral cameras. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Mar;117(3):386-92.
18. Rajan BN, Jayaraman S, Kandhasamy B, Rajakumaran I. Evaluation of marginal fit and internal adaptation of zirconia copings fabricated by two CAD-CAM systems: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015 Apr;15(2):173-8.
19. Vojdani M, Torabi K, Farjood E, Khaledi AA. Comparison the marginal and internal fit of metal copings cast from wax patterns fabricated by CAD/CAM and conventional wax up techniques. J Dent. (Shiraz). 2013 Apr;14(3):118-29.
20. Kale E, Yilmaz B, Seker E, Özcelik TB. Effect of fabrication stages and cementation on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Dec;118(6):736-41.
21. 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 Oct;26(7):581-6.
22. Hamza TA, Ezzat HA, El-Hossary MM, Katamish HA, Shokry TE, Rosenstiel SF. Accuracy of ceramic restorations made with two CAD/CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):83-7.
23. El-Dessouky RA, Salama MM, Shakal MA, Korsel AM. Marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM zirconia-based crown during fabrication steps. Tanta Dent J. 2015 Jun;12(2):81-8.
24. Limkangwalmongkol P, Kee E, Chiche G, Blatz M. Comparison of marginal fit between all-porcelain margin versus alumina supported margin on procera alumina crowns. J Prosthodont ACP. 2009 Feb;18(2):162-6.
25. Shape D700. Sculpt CAD 2016. Available from: http://sculptcad.com/3shape-d700/.
26. Prudente MS, Davi LR, Nabbout KO, Prado CJ, Pereira LM, Zancopé K, et al. Influence of scanner, powder application, and adjustments on CAD-CAM crown misfit. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Mar;119(3):377-83.
27. Cho SH, Nagy WW, Goodman JT, Solomon E, Koike M. The effect of multiple firings on the marginal integrity of pressable ceramic single crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Jan;107(1):17-23.
28. Balkaya MC, Cinar A, Pamuk S. Influence of firing cycles on the margin distortion of 3 all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Apr;93(4):346-55.
29. Jalali H, Hajmiragha H, Farid F, Tabatabaie S, Jalali S. Effect of scanner type on marginal adaptation of e. max CAD Crowns. J Islam Dent Assoc Iran. 2018 Oct;30(4):139-44.
30. Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M, Kuhn K, Sichwardt V, Wostmann B, et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016 Jan-Feb; 24(1):85-94.
31. Bosniac P, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Comparison of an indirect impression scanning system and two direct intraoral scanning systems in vivo. Clin oral investing. 2018 Oct;23(5):2421-7.
32. Bohner LO, Canto GD, Marció BS, Laganá DC, Sesma N, Neto PT. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Nov;118(5):617-23.
33. 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 May;35(3):324-9.
|Issue||Vol 18 (Continuously Published Article-Based)|
|Computer-Aided Design Dental Marginal Adaptation Yttria Stabilized Tetragonal Zirconia|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|