Chairside measurement of the marginal and internal fit of crowns: a new intraoral scan–based approach

  • Maximiliane Amelie SchlenzEmail author
  • Jonas Adrian Helmut Vogler
  • Alexander Schmidt
  • Peter Rehmann
  • Bernd Wöstmann
Original Article



To investigate the marginal and internal fit of crowns, a new intraoral scanner–based digital approach for chairside measurement (D-IOS) was systematically analysed and compared with the conventional silicone replica technique (CV-SR) and digital 3D analysis software (D-GOM).

Materials and methods

Two models, representing different clinical situations, were constructed, and the first molar was prepared for a full-coverage crown. On the basis of an intraoral scan (Trios 3), copings of three different materials (non-precious alloy, zirconium dioxide, and resin composite) with two different cement spaces (80 μm, 50 μm) were manufactured. The fit of the copings was investigated by all three methods (CV-SR, D-IOS, D-GOM). Therefore, the cement space was visualized with low-viscosity silicone and digitalized with a second intraoral scan. Evaluation of fit by the D-IOS-method was measured in the intraoral scanner software, whereas for analysis by D-GOM, both intraoral scan datasets were transferred to 3D analysis software (GOM Inspect). The CV-SR-method was used as a control group. For all copings, the measurements were repeated five times. The data were analysed with ANOVA.


No significant differences between the three evaluation methods and the coping materials were shown. However, in the occlusal area, the internal gap was significantly higher compared to the internal gap in the marginal and axial areas regardless of the cement space setting (p < .05). The target parameter of the cement spaces did not match the actual measured internal gaps.


All three evaluation methods and coping materials can be used for the measurement of fit within different clinical situations.

Clinical relevance

The digital chairside measurement implemented in the intraoral scanner software enables an easy, applicable evaluation of fit of crowns without additional laboratory devices or special software applications.


Internal fit Marginal fit Chairside Intraoral scanner Replica technique CAD/CAM 



The authors would like to thank our biostatistician, Dr. Johannes Herrmann, for the statistical analysis. Furthermore, we gratefully acknowledge the support of our dental technician Thorsten Landgraf (Zahntechnikzentrum Eisenach, Germany).

Funding information

The work was supported by the Department of Prosthodontics, Justus-Liebig-University in Giessen, Germany.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The use of human teeth was approved by the local ethics committee.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Pimenta MA, Frasca LC, Lopes R, Rivaldo E (2015) Evaluation of marginal and internal fit of ceramic and metallic crown copings using x-ray microtomography (micro-CT) technology. J Prosthet Dent 114:223–228. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neves FD, Prado CJ, Prudente MS, Carneiro TA, Zancope K, Davi LR, Mendonca G, Cooper LF, Soares CJ (2014) Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. J Prosthet Dent 112:1134–1140. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O (2014) A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil 41:853–874. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T, Wakabayashi K (2003) Marginal and internal fit of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 16:244–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rezende CE, Borges AF, Gonzaga CC, Duan Y, Rubo JH, Griggs JA (2017) Effect of cement space on stress distribution in Y-TZP based crowns. Dent Mater 33:144–151. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee DH (2016) Digital approach to assessing the 3-dimensional misfit of fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 116:836–839. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boitelle P, Tapie L, Mawussi B, Fromentin O (2018) Evaluation of the marginal fit of CAD-CAM zirconia copings: comparison of 2D and 3D measurement methods. J Prosthet Dent 119:75–81. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsitrou EA, Northeast SE, van Noort R (2007) Evaluation of the marginal fit of three margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD/CAM. J Dent 35:68–73. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wostmann B, Blosser T, Gouentenoudis M, Balkenhol M, Ferger P (2005) Influence of margin design on the fit of high-precious alloy restorations in patients. J Dent 33:611–618. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ji MK, Park JH, Park SW, Yun KD, Oh GJ, Lim HP (2015) Evaluation of marginal fit of 2 CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown systems and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crown. J Adv Prosthodont 7:271–277. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bosniac P, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2018) Comparison of an indirect impression scanning system and two direct intraoral scanning systems in vivo. Clin Oral Investig 23:2421–2427. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2015) Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 19:2027–2034. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuhn K, Ostertag S, Ostertag M, Walter MH, Luthardt RG, Rudolph H (2015) Comparison of an analog and digital quantitative and qualitative analysis for the fit of dental copings. Comput Biol Med 57:32–41. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 113:174–179. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mostafa NZ, Ruse ND, Ford NL, Carvalho RM, Wyatt CCL (2018) Marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated using conventional and digital methodology: a three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthodont 27:145–152. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim KB, Kim JH, Kim WC, Kim JH (2014) Three-dimensional evaluation of gaps associated with fixed dental prostheses fabricated with new technologies. J Prosthet Dent 112:1432–1436. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luthardt RG, Bornemann G, Lemelson S, Walter MH, Huls A (2004) An innovative method for evaluation of the 3-D internal fit of CAD/CAM crowns fabricated after direct optical versus indirect laser scan digitizing. Int J Prosthodont 17:680–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mai HN, Lee KE, Lee KB, Jeong SM, Lee SJ, Lee CH, An SY, Lee DH (2017) Verification of a computer-aided replica technique for evaluating prosthesis adaptation using statistical agreement analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 9:358–363. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zimmermann M, Valcanaia A, Neiva G, Mehl A, Fasbinder D (2018) Digital evaluation of the fit of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns with a new three-dimensional approach. Quintessence Int 49:9–15. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Praca L, Pekam FC, Rego RO, Radermacher K, Wolfart S, Marotti J (2018) Accuracy of single crowns fabricated from ultrasound digital impressions. Dent Mater 34:e280–e288. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Podhorsky A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2015) Tooth preparation for full-coverage restorations-a literature review. Clin Oral Investig 19:959–968. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD (1989) Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 62:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boitelle P, Tapie L, Mawussi B, Fromentin O (2016) 3D fitting accuracy evaluation of CAD/CAM copings - comparison with spacer design settings. Int J Comput Dent 19:27–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Forbes A (1989) Least-squares best-fit geometric elementsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Groten M, Axmann D, Probster L, Weber H (2000) Determination of the minimum number of marginal gap measurements required for practical in-vitro testing. J Prosthet Dent 83:40–49. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Guth JF (2016) Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig 20:283–289. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 30:400–407. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hmaidouch R, Neumann P, Mueller WD (2011) Influence of preparation form, luting space setting and cement type on the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM crown copings. Int J Comput Dent 14:219–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zimmermann M, Valcanaia A, Neiva G, Mehl A, Fasbinder D (2019) Three-dimensional digital evaluation of the fit of endocrowns fabricated from different CAD/CAM materials. J Prosthodont 28:e504–e509. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    May LG, Kelly JR, Bottino MA, Hill T (2012) Effects of cement thickness and bonding on the failure loads of CAD/CAM ceramic crowns: multi-physics FEA modeling and monotonic testing. Dent Mater 28:e99–e109.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics - Dental ClinicJustus-Liebig-UniversityGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations