Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Positional Changes in Single-Unit CAD/CAM Restorations Following Cementation -An Analysis of an On-going RCT Cohort.

IF 1.8
Agnnès Sahli, Duygu Karasan, Malin Strasding, Philippe Mojon, Irena Sailer, Philippe Boitelle
{"title":"Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Positional Changes in Single-Unit CAD/CAM Restorations Following Cementation -An Analysis of an On-going RCT Cohort.","authors":"Agnnès Sahli, Duygu Karasan, Malin Strasding, Philippe Mojon, Irena Sailer, Philippe Boitelle","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the three-dimensional (3D) position of digitally designed single-unit restorations with their clinical intraoral position after cementation.</p><p><strong>Material and method: </strong>This study is part of an on-going randomized clinical trial evaluating the success of indirect restorations - onlays and crowns - fabricated from different machinable materials: aluminosilicate glass ceramics (N!ce, Straumann), hybrid ceramics (VITA ENAMIC, VITA Zahnfabrik), and lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent). A retrospective digital analysis was performed by comparing original CAD design files with intraoral scans obtained after definitive cementation. The sample included single-unit restorations from 52 patients, with 13 treated at the University and 39 treated in a specialized private practice. Following cementation and occlusal adjustments, quadrant scans were acquired using two intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona; and TRIOS 3, 3Shape). Scan data were exported as STL files, superimposed with the corresponding digital designs, and analysed using GOM Inspect software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences in trueness were found among restoration types or materials. Mean deviations were 120µm ± 38µm for aluminosilicate glass ceramics, 129µm ± 28µm for hybrid ceramics, and 118µm ± 39µm for lithium disilicate. Crowns showed a tendency toward better trueness (113 µm ± 32µm) than onlays (132µm ± 36µm; p=0.056). Precision analysis also revealed no significant differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the study limitations, both restoration type and material demonstrated comparable and minimal 3D deviations, supporting satisfactory accuracy of a fully digital workflow for single-unit indirect restorations.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the three-dimensional (3D) position of digitally designed single-unit restorations with their clinical intraoral position after cementation.

Material and method: This study is part of an on-going randomized clinical trial evaluating the success of indirect restorations - onlays and crowns - fabricated from different machinable materials: aluminosilicate glass ceramics (N!ce, Straumann), hybrid ceramics (VITA ENAMIC, VITA Zahnfabrik), and lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent). A retrospective digital analysis was performed by comparing original CAD design files with intraoral scans obtained after definitive cementation. The sample included single-unit restorations from 52 patients, with 13 treated at the University and 39 treated in a specialized private practice. Following cementation and occlusal adjustments, quadrant scans were acquired using two intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona; and TRIOS 3, 3Shape). Scan data were exported as STL files, superimposed with the corresponding digital designs, and analysed using GOM Inspect software.

Results: No significant differences in trueness were found among restoration types or materials. Mean deviations were 120µm ± 38µm for aluminosilicate glass ceramics, 129µm ± 28µm for hybrid ceramics, and 118µm ± 39µm for lithium disilicate. Crowns showed a tendency toward better trueness (113 µm ± 32µm) than onlays (132µm ± 36µm; p=0.056). Precision analysis also revealed no significant differences between groups.

Conclusions: Within the study limitations, both restoration type and material demonstrated comparable and minimal 3D deviations, supporting satisfactory accuracy of a fully digital workflow for single-unit indirect restorations.

单单元CAD/CAM修复体固接后位置变化的三维评估——一项正在进行的RCT队列分析。
目的:比较数字设计的单单元修复体的三维位置与临床固接后的口腔内位置。材料和方法:本研究是一项正在进行的随机临床试验的一部分,该试验评估间接修复的成功-烤瓷牙和冠-由不同的可加工材料制成:铝硅酸盐玻璃陶瓷(N!ce, Straumann),混合陶瓷(VITA ENAMIC, VITA Zahnfabrik)和二硅酸锂(IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent)。回顾性的数字分析通过比较原始的CAD设计文件和口腔内的扫描后获得明确的胶结。样本包括来自52名患者的单单元修复,其中13名在大学接受治疗,39名在专门的私人诊所接受治疗。在胶结和咬合调整后,使用两台口内扫描仪(CEREC Omnicam, Sirona;和TRIOS 3,3shape)进行象限扫描。扫描数据导出为STL文件,叠加相应的数字设计,并使用GOM Inspect软件进行分析。结果:不同修复体类型和材料的正确率无显著差异。铝硅酸盐玻璃陶瓷的平均偏差为120µm±38µm,杂化陶瓷为129µm±28µm,二硅酸锂为118µm±39µm。冠状体的正确率(113µm±32µm)优于单纯体(132µm±36µm, p=0.056)。精密度分析也显示各组间无显著差异。结论:在研究限制范围内,修复类型和材料都显示出可比较的和最小的3D偏差,支持单个单元间接修复的全数字化工作流程的令人满意的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书