Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material

Statement of problem. The use of digital intraoral scanners is increasing; however, evidence of its precision in making crown impressions clinically remains scarce. Patients should also feel more comfortable with digital impressions, but only a few studies evaluating this subject have been performed. Purpose. The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the marginal fit of monolithic zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for digital impressions versus polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions. Material and methods. Sixteen participants with indications for single molar crowns were included. After crown preparation, digital impressions by intraoral scanner and PVS impressions were made. The participants were asked to complete a 6‐item questionnaire with a visual analog scale related to perceptions of each of the following topics: time involved, taste/smell, occlusal registration, size of impression tray/scanner, gag reflex, and overall preference. Computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing monolithic zirconia crowns were fabricated from both impressions. The crowns were evaluated intraorally, and a blinded examiner measured the marginal discrepancy of silicone replicas under a stereomicroscope. Intraexaminer reliability was evaluated by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient. Data for patients’ preferences and marginal discrepancies were analyzed using the paired t test (&agr;=.05). Results. Visual analog scale scores for digital impressions were statistically significantly higher than those for PVS impressions in every topic (P<.05), except for occlusal registration. The results showed excellent reliability of the examiner with an intraclass correlation coefficient of .996. No significant difference was found in marginal discrepancies between the PVS group and the digital group on all sides (P>.05). Conclusions. No differences were found in the clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns fabricated from either digital impressions compared with PVS impressions. Furthermore, patients’ satisfaction with digital impressions was significantly higher than with conventional impressions.

[1]  A J Hunter,et al.  Gingival margins for crowns: a review and discussion. Part II: Discrepancies and configurations. , 1990, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  E. D. Rekow,et al.  Dental CAD/CAM systems: a 20-year success story. , 2006, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[3]  S. Bayne,et al.  Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  Mathieu Contrepois,et al.  Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  Josep Cabratosa-Termes,et al.  Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  E. Yuzbasioglu,et al.  Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes , 2014, BMC oral health.

[7]  F. M. Gardner,et al.  Margins of complete crowns--literature review. , 1982, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  Stefan Wolfart,et al.  The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow—the comparison of two systems , 2013, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[9]  J. L. Stewart,et al.  Unserviceable crowns and fixed partial dentures: life-span and causes for loss of serviceability. , 1970, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[10]  Tamer Abdelazim Mellik,et al.  Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  M I MacEntee,et al.  Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  S C Bayne,et al.  Marginal fit of castable ceramic crowns. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  Andreas Syrek,et al.  Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. , 2010, Journal of dentistry.

[14]  H. Reijers,et al.  Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. , 2014, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  G Oilo,et al.  The fit of metal-ceramic crowns, a clinical study. , 1985, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[16]  M. Cune,et al.  Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[17]  Jae Hoon Lee,et al.  Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  A. H. Tjan,et al.  Effect of tray space on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impressions. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  K. Knoernschild,et al.  Periodontal tissue responses after insertion of artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures. , 2000, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  Werner H. Moörmann The evolution of the CEREC system , 2006 .

[21]  Stig Karlsson,et al.  Fit of a new pressure-sintered zirconium dioxide coping. , 2004, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[22]  Karla Zancopé,et al.  Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[23]  Pascal Magne,et al.  Final impressions: a review of material properties and description of a current technique. , 2004, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[24]  W. Mörmann The evolution of the CEREC system. , 2006, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[25]  Gary Davidowitz,et al.  The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. , 2011, Dental clinics of North America.

[26]  Alfred A Bartolucci,et al.  Effect of imaging powder and CAD/CAM stone types on the marginal gap of zirconia crowns. , 2015, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[27]  Evanthia Anadioti,et al.  Internal fit of pressed and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[28]  S. Bayne,et al.  Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[29]  Igor J Pesun,et al.  Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[30]  J. Mclean,et al.  The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique , 1971, British Dental Journal.

[31]  J R Strub,et al.  Marginal fit of restorations before and after cementation in vivo. , 1993, The International journal of prosthodontics.