Digital impression techniques are advertised as an alternative to conventional impressioning. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of full ceramic crowns obtained from intraoral scans with Lava C.O.S. (3M ESPE), CEREC (Sirona), and iTero (Straumann) with conventional impression techniques.
Materials and methods
A model of a simplified molar was fabricated. Ten 2-step and 10 single-step putty-wash impressions were taken using silicone impression material and poured with type IV plaster. For both techniques 10 crowns were made of two materials (Lava zirconia, Cera E cast crowns). Then, 10 digital impressions (Lava C.O.S.) were taken and Lava zirconia crowns manufactured, 10 full ceramic crowns were fabricated with CEREC (Empress CAD) and 10 full ceramic crowns were made with iTero (Copran Zr-i). The accessible marginal inaccuracy (AMI) and the internal fit (IF) were measured.
For AMI, the following results were obtained (mean ± SD): overall groups, 44 ± 26 μm; single-step putty-wash impression (Lava zirconia), 33 ± 19 μm; single-step putty-wash impression (Cera-E), 38 ± 25 μm; two-step putty-wash impression (Lava zirconia), 60 ± 30 μm; two-step putty-wash impression (Cera-E), 68 ± 29 μm; Lava C.O.S., 48 ± 25 μm; CEREC, 30 ± 17 μm; and iTero, 41 ± 16 μm. With regard to IF, errors were assessed as follows (mean ± SD): overall groups, 49 ± 25 μm; single-step putty-wash impression (Lava zirconia), 36 ± 5 μm; single-step putty-wash impression (Cera-E), 44 ± 22 μm; two-step putty-wash impression (Lava zirconia), 35 ± 7 μm; two-step putty-wash impression (Cera-E), 56 ± 36 μm; Lava C.O.S., 29 ± 7 μm; CEREC, 88 ± 20 μm; and iTero, 50 ± 2 μm.
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be stated that digital impression systems allow the fabrication of fixed prosthetic restorations with similar accuracy as conventional impression methods.
Digital impression techniques can be regarded as a clinical alternative to conventional impressions for fixed dental restorations.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Samet N, Shohat M, Livny A, Weiss EI (2005) A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions. J Prosthet Dent 94(2):112–117
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
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
Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F (1987) The Cerec system: computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting. Quintessenz 38(3):457–470
Lee KB, Park CW, Kim KH, Kwon TY (2008) Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic crowns fabricated with two different CAD/CAM systems. Dent Mater J 27(3):422–426
Tinschert J, Natt G, Spiekermann H, Anusavice K (2001) Marginal fit of alumina- and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent 26(4):367–374
Suarez MJ, Gonzalez de Villaumbrosia P, Pradies G, Lozano JF (2003) Comparison of the marginal fit of Procera AllCeram crowns with two finish lines. Int J Prosthodont 16(3):229–232
Bindl A, Mormann WH (2005) Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabil 32(6):441–447
Schaefer O, Watts DC, Sigusch BW, Kuepper H, Guentsch A (2012) Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility. Dent Mater 28(3):320–326
Grasso JE, Nalbandian J, Sanford C, Bailit H (1985) Effect of restoration quality on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 53(1):14–19
Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD (1989) Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 62(4):405–408
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
Bindl A, Windisch S, Mormann WH (1999) Full-ceramic CAD/CIM anterior crowns and copings. Int J Comput Dent 2(2):97–111
da Costa JB (2010) Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D. Oper Dent 35(3):324–329
Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21
Phark J, Oliveira AL (2012) Marginal fit of all-ceramic crowns using conventional and digital impressions. J Dent Res 91 (Spec Iss A):991. http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2012tampa/webprogram/Paper158085.html
Kim M, Song H, Heo S (2012) Accuracy of an intraoral digital impression using parallel confocal imaging. J Dent Res 91 (Spec Iss B):995. http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2012rio/webprogram/Paper160149.html
Kachalia PR, Geissberger MJ (2010) Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD/CAM technology. J Calif Dent Assoc 38(5):323–330
Idris B, Houston F, Claffey N (1995) Comparison of the dimensional accuracy of one- and two-step techniques with the use of putty/wash addition silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 74(5):535–541
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(7):611–618
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Seelbach, P., Brueckel, C. & Wöstmann, B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Invest 17, 1759–1764 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4
- Digital impression
- Intraoral scanning
- Dental impression