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.