Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the marginal fit of dental crowns based on three different intraoral digital and one conventional impression methods.

Methods

Forty-nine teeth of altogether 24 patients were prepared to be treated with full-coverage restorations. Digital impressions were made using three intraoral scanners: Sirona CEREC AC Omnicam (OCam), Heraeus Cara TRIOS and 3M Lava True Definition (TDef). Furthermore, a gypsum model based on a conventional impression (EXA’lence, GC, Tokyo, Japan) was scanned with a standard laboratory scanner (3Shape D700). Based on the dataset obtained, four zirconia copings per tooth were produced. The marginal fit of the copings in the patient’s mouth was assessed employing a replica technique.

Results

Overall, seven measurement copings did not fit and, therefore, could not be assessed. The marginal gap was 88 μm (68–136 μm) [median/interquartile range] for the TDef, 112 μm (94–149 μm) for the Cara TRIOS, 113 μm (81–157 μm) for the laboratory scanner and 149 μm (114–218 μm) for the OCam. There was a statistically significant difference between the OCam and the other groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that zirconia copings based on intraoral scans and a laboratory scans of a conventional model are comparable to one another with regard to their marginal fit.

Clinical relevance

Regarding the results of this study, the digital intraoral impression can be considered as an alternative to a conventional impression with a consecutive digital workflow when the finish line is clearly visible and it is possible to keep it dry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C (2014) A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosth Dent 112(3):555–60. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.002

  2. Tidehag P, Ottosson K, Sjogren G (2013) Accuracy of ceramic restorations made using an in-office optical scanning technique: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 39(3):308–316. doi:10.2341/12-309-L

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38(7):553–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA (2013) Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/clr.12234

    Google Scholar 

  5. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H (2014) Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 14:10

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC (2013) Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144(3):471–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A (2014) Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro. J Dent

  8. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J (1995) Principles of tooth preparation. In: Duncan L (ed) Contemporary fixed prosthodontics, vol 2. Mosby-Year Book, Inc, St. Louis, pp pp 135–pp 167

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sirona (2012) Operating instructions for the acquisition unit with Omnicam. http://www.sironasupport.com/support/wp-content/uploads/EN_6381136-operator-manual.pdf

  10. Balkenhol M, Haunschild S, Erbe C, Wöstmann B (2010) Influence of prolonged setting time on permanent deformation of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 103(5):288–294. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60060-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Böning KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kastner K, Walter MH (2000) Clinical fit of procera all ceram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 84(4):419–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Laurent M, Scheer P, Dejou J, Laborde G (2008) Clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of cast crowns—validation of the silicone replica method. J Oral Rehabil 35(2):116–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Reich S, Uhlen S, Gozdowski S, Lohbauer U (2011) Measurement of cement thickness under lithium disilicate crowns using an impression material technique. Clin Oral Investig 15(4):521–526. doi:10.1007/s00784-010-0414-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fransson B, Oilo G, Gjeitanger R (1985) The fit of metal-ceramic crowns, a clinical study. Dent Mater 1(5):197–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Renne W, McGill ST, Forshee KV, DeFee MR, Mennito AS (2012) Predicting marginal fit of CAD/CAM crowns based on the presence or absence of common preparation errors. J Prosth Dent 108(5):310–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Karlsson S (1993) The fit of procera titanium crowns. An in vitro and clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 51(3):129–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD (1989) Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 62(4):405–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S (2013) The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow—the comparison of two systems. Clinical oral investigations 17(9):2119–2125. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-0923-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Scotti R, Cardelli P, Baldissara P, Monaco C (2011) Clinical fitting of CAD/CAM zirconia single crowns generated from digital intraoral impressions based on active wavefront sampling. J Dent

  20. Bader JD, Rozier RG, McFall WT Jr, Ramsey DL (1991) Effect of crown margins on periodontal conditions in regularly attending patients. J Prosthet Dent 65(1):75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Valderhaug J, Birkeland JM (1976) Periodontal conditions in patients 5 years following insertion of fixed prostheses. Pocket depth and loss of attachment. J Oral Rehabil 3(3):237–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Silness J (1970) Periodontal conditions in patients treated with dental bridges. 3. The relationship between the location of the crown margin and the periodontal condition. J Periodont Res 5(3):225–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 18 (6):1687-1694

  24. Kim SY, Kim MJ, Han JS, Yeo IS, Lim YJ, Kwon HB (2013) Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 26(2):161–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2011) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17(4):1201–1208. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y (2012) Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 7(8):0043312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B (2013) Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17(7):1759–1764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF (2014) Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization—a laboratory study. Dent Mater 30(4):400–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Euán R, Figueras-Álvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Oliver-Parra R (2014) Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design. J Prosthet Dent 112(2):155–62. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.10.012

  30. Almeida ESJS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, Guth JF (2013) Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 18(2):512–523

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12(1):11–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8(4):283–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109(2):121–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wöstmann B (1996) Klinische Bestimmungsvariablen bei der Abformung präparierter Zähne. Stomatologie 93(2):51–57

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wöstmann B (1994) Zur Frage der in vivo erreichbaren Abformgenauigkeit. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 49(9):679–682

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Johannes Herrmann, Giessen, Germany, for his statistical advice and the Sirona company for the transfer of the Omnicam files to STL format.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Germany

    Moritz Boeddinghaus, Eva Sabina Breloer, Peter Rehmann & Bernd Wöstmann

Authors
  1. Moritz Boeddinghaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Sabina Breloer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Rehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bernd Wöstmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Wöstmann.

Additional information

German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS ID: DRKS00005958)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boeddinghaus, M., Breloer, E.S., Rehmann, P. et al. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Invest 19, 2027–2034 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation