Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 515–523 | Cite as

Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques

  • Júnio S. Almeida e Silva
  • Kurt Erdelt
  • Daniel Edelhoff
  • Élito Araújo
  • Michael Stimmelmayr
  • Luiz Clovis Cardoso Vieira
  • Jan-Frederik Güth
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-generated four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses made with digital and conventional impressions.

Materials and method

A titanium master model was used. For group conventional impression (CI), 12 polyether impressions of the master model with ImpregumTM were made. For group digital impression (DI), 12 digital impressions of the master model using LavaTM C.O.S. system were made. The replica technique was applied. The Mann–Whitney U statistical test was applied to detect statistical differences between the groups, in terms of marginal and internal fit. Face-by-face comparisons between groups were also carried out.

Results

Groups DI and CI presented mean marginal fit of 63.96 and 65.33 μm, respectively, and showed no statistically significant difference. Groups DI and CI presented significantly different internal fit with mean values of 58.46 and 65.94 μm, respectively. Group DI showed statistically significantly lower values for marginal and internal fit on premolar mesial face, and on molar distal and palatal faces.

Conclusions

Frameworks fabricated from digital and conventional impressions showed clinically acceptable marginal fit. Frameworks fabricated from digital impression demonstrated better internal fit than ones fabricated from conventional impression. Reviewing each retainer face, digital impression showed better marginal and internal fit at the premolar mesial and molar distal faces.

Clinical relevance

The results of this in vitro study show that digital impressions made with the LavaTM C.O.S. system and its digital workflow are suitable for fabricating four-unit zirconia frameworks, with regard to marginal and internal fit requirements.

Keywords

CAD/CAM Fit Fixed dental prostheses Zirconia Digital impression Precision 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author was supported by the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (grant no. BEX 2354101). The authors thank Mrs. Vindi Jurinovic (IBE, LMU Munich) for statistical support.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139(6):761–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cancy JM, Scandrett FR, Ettinger RL (1983) Long-term dimensional stability of three current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil 10(4):325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Endo T, Finger WJ (2006) Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material. Quintessence Int 37(1):47–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shetty P, Rodrigues S (2006) Accuracy of elastomeric impression materials on repeated pours. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 6(2):68–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hondrum SO (2001) Changes in properties of non-aqueous elastomeric impression materials after storage of components. J Prosthet Dent 85(1):73–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT 2nd, Hovijitra S, Brown DT, Andres CJ (2002) Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time. J Prosthodont 11(2):98–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    State of the industry (2000) Lab Management Today; 2000; 9–15Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christensen GJ (2005) The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions. Room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 136:343–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christensen GJ (2007) Laboratories want better impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 138(4):527–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen GJ (2008) The challenge to conventional impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 139(3):347–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Touchstone A, Nieting T, Ulmer N (2010) Digital transition: the collaboration between dentists and laboratory technicians on CAD/CAM restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 141(6 suppl):15S–19SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mehl A, Hickel R (1999) Current state of development and perspectives of machine based production methods for dental restorations. Int J Comput Dent 2(1):9–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D (2008) Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 204(9):505–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Bakri IA, Hussey D, Al-Omari WM (2007) The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials. J Clin Dent 18(2):29–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beuer F, Naumann M, Gernet W (2009) Precision of fit: zirconia three-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Invest 13:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jablonski S (1993) Illustrated dictionary of dentistry, 1982. J Dent 21:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fransson B, Oilo G, Gjeitanger R (1985) The fit of metal-ceramic crowns, a clinical study. Dent Mater 1:197–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karlsson S (1993) The fit of Procera titanium crowns. An in vitro and clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 51:129–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA (1971) The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 131:107–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Belser UC, MacEntee MI, Richter WA (1985) Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 53:24–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sulaiman F, Chai J, Jameson LM, Wozniak WT (1997) A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont 10:478–484PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beschinidt SM, Strub JR (1999) Evaluation of the marginal accuracy of different all-ceramic crown systems after simulation in the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehab 26:582–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Janenko C, Smales RJ (1979) Anterior crowns and gingival health. Australi Dent J 24:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bader JD, Rozier RG, McFall WT Jr, Ramsey DL (1991) Effect of crowns margins on periodontal conditions in regularly attending patients. J Prosthet Dent 65:75–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Vult Von Steyern O, Fukushima S (2005) Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera All-Ceram crowns. J Oral Rehab 32:526–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reich S, Wichmann M, Nkenke E, Proeschel P (2005) Clinical fit of all-ceramic three-unit fixed partial dentures, generated with three different CAD/CAM systems. Eur J Oral Sci 113:174–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reich S, Kappe K, Teschner H, Schimitt J (2008) Clinical fit of four-unit zirconia posterior fixed dental prostheses. Eur J Oral Sci 116:579–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kohorst P, Brinkmann H, Li J, Borchers L, Stiesch M (2009) Marginal accuracy of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated using different computer-aided manufacturing systems. Eur J Oral Sci 117:319–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rekow D, Thompson VP (2005) Near-surface damage—a persistent problem in crowns obtained by computer-aided design and manufacturing. Proc Inst Mech Eng 219:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lava Chairside Oral Scanner C.O.S (2009) 3M ESPE Technical Datasheet. http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=66666UuZjcFSLXTtnXMVMXfXEVuQEcuZgVs6EVs6E666666. Accessed 10 May 2011
  31. 31.
    Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38:553–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kunii J, Hotta Y, Tamaki Y, Ozawa A, Kobayashi Y, Fujishima A, Myasaki T, Fujiwara T (2007) Effect of shrinkage on the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia frameworks. Dent Mater J 26(6):820–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mehl A, Ender A, Mörman W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12(1):11–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG (2007) Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 35(12):903–908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kästner K, Walter MH (2000) Clinical fit of Procera all-ceram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 84:419–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Molin M, Karlsson S (1993) The fit of gold inlays and three ceramic inlay systems. A clinical and in vitro study. Acta Odontol Scand 51:201–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD (1989) Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 62:405–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tuntiprawon M, Wilson PR (1995) The effect of cement thickness on the fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Aust Dent J 40:17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rekow ED, Harsono M, Janal M, Thompsin VP, Zhang G (2006) Factorial analysis of variables influencing stress in all-ceramic crowns. Dent Mater 22:125–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M (2010) Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: a systematic review. J Oral Rehab 47:866–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.10.005
  43. 43.
    Suttor D, Bunke K, Hoescheller S, Hauptmann H, Hertlein G (2001) LAVA—the system for all-ceramic ZrO2 crown and bridge frameworks. Int Comput Dent 4:195–206Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Moldovan O, Luthardt RG, Corcodel N, Rudolph H (2011) Three-dimensional fit of CAD/CAM-made zirconia copings. Dent Mater 27(12):1273–1278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Júnio S. Almeida e Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kurt Erdelt
    • 2
  • Daniel Edelhoff
    • 2
  • Élito Araújo
    • 3
  • Michael Stimmelmayr
    • 2
  • Luiz Clovis Cardoso Vieira
    • 4
  • Jan-Frederik Güth
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Operative DentistryFederal University of Santa CatarinaAnapólisBrazil
  2. 2.Department of ProsthodonticsDental School of the Ludwig-Maximilians UniversityMunichGermany
  3. 3.Comprehensive ClinicFederal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil
  4. 4.Operative Dentistry DivisionFederal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations