Evaluation of Diverse Digital Impression Systems on the Three-Dimensional (3D) Fit of All-Ceram CAD/CAM Crowns

Anne-Christelle Makhlouf, George Hanna, Michèle Makhlouf, E. Zebouni, A. Zoghbi, Elie Nasr
{"title":"Evaluation of Diverse Digital Impression Systems on the Three-Dimensional (3D) Fit of All-Ceram CAD/CAM Crowns","authors":"Anne-Christelle Makhlouf, George Hanna, Michèle Makhlouf, E. Zebouni, A. Zoghbi, Elie Nasr","doi":"10.58624/svoade.2023.04.0128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This in vitro study's objective is to assess the Three-Dimensional (3D) internal and marginal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAD crowns produced by various digital impression systems. Materials and Methods: Three different intraoral scanners: CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), Trios 4 (3Shape), and CS 3700 (Carestream Dental) were used to digitally scan an experimental model based on ISO 12836:2015. The CAD/CAM processes suggested by each system (CEREC Primescan, Trios 4 and CS 3700; N = 15) were used to create ceramic crowns. A 3D inspection program (Geomagic control X) was used to measure The Three-Dimensional (3D) marginal and internal fit of each ceramic crown. By using the Kruskal-Wallis test, differences between the systems and various measurements were assessed. Pairwise comparisons were used to validate statistically significant differences (= 0.05). Results: Occlusal gaps in the CEREC Primescan, Trios 4 and CS 3700 groups were 113.0, 161.3, and 438.2 µm, respectively (p<0.001). The axial gaps were 83.4, 78.0, and 107.9 µm, respectively. While the marginal gaps were 77.8, 99.3, and 60.6 µm, respectively, finally the whole gaps were 85.9, 107.3, and 214.0 µm, respectively. The marginal gap sizes with the Trios 4 system were considerably different from those with the other two systems. The CEREC Primescan system proved no distinctive variations between the four measured regions. However, the Trios 4 and CS 3700 systems did show a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Conclusion: The marginal gap, which is the most essential aspect in the marginal and internal fit of fixed prostheses, was recorded to be below 100 µm in all three systems, leading to the conclusion that all three systems are capable of producing clinically acceptable prostheses.","PeriodicalId":93501,"journal":{"name":"SVOA Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SVOA Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58624/svoade.2023.04.0128","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

Aim: This in vitro study's objective is to assess the Three-Dimensional (3D) internal and marginal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAD crowns produced by various digital impression systems. Materials and Methods: Three different intraoral scanners: CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), Trios 4 (3Shape), and CS 3700 (Carestream Dental) were used to digitally scan an experimental model based on ISO 12836:2015. The CAD/CAM processes suggested by each system (CEREC Primescan, Trios 4 and CS 3700; N = 15) were used to create ceramic crowns. A 3D inspection program (Geomagic control X) was used to measure The Three-Dimensional (3D) marginal and internal fit of each ceramic crown. By using the Kruskal-Wallis test, differences between the systems and various measurements were assessed. Pairwise comparisons were used to validate statistically significant differences (= 0.05). Results: Occlusal gaps in the CEREC Primescan, Trios 4 and CS 3700 groups were 113.0, 161.3, and 438.2 µm, respectively (p<0.001). The axial gaps were 83.4, 78.0, and 107.9 µm, respectively. While the marginal gaps were 77.8, 99.3, and 60.6 µm, respectively, finally the whole gaps were 85.9, 107.3, and 214.0 µm, respectively. The marginal gap sizes with the Trios 4 system were considerably different from those with the other two systems. The CEREC Primescan system proved no distinctive variations between the four measured regions. However, the Trios 4 and CS 3700 systems did show a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Conclusion: The marginal gap, which is the most essential aspect in the marginal and internal fit of fixed prostheses, was recorded to be below 100 µm in all three systems, leading to the conclusion that all three systems are capable of producing clinically acceptable prostheses.
不同数字压印系统对全瓷CAD/CAM冠三维配合的评价
目的:本体外研究的目的是评估各种数字印模系统生产的全陶瓷CAD/CAD冠的三维(3D)内部和边缘配合。材料和方法:使用三种不同的口腔内扫描仪:CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), Trios 4 (3Shape)和CS 3700 (Carestream Dental),根据ISO 12836:2015对实验模型进行数字扫描。各系统建议的CAD/CAM工艺(CEREC Primescan、Trios 4和cs3700;N = 15),用于制作陶瓷冠。使用三维检测程序(Geomagic control X)测量每个陶瓷冠的三维(3D)边缘和内部配合。通过使用Kruskal-Wallis测试,评估了系统和各种测量之间的差异。两两比较验证差异有统计学意义(= 0.05)。结果:CEREC Primescan组、Trios 4组和CS 3700组的牙合间隙分别为113.0、161.3和438.2µm (p<0.001)。轴向间隙分别为83.4、78.0和107.9µm。边际间隙分别为77.8、99.3和60.6µm,最终整体间隙分别为85.9、107.3和214.0µm。Trios 4系统的边际间隙大小与其他两种系统有很大不同。CEREC Primescan系统证明在四个测量区域之间没有明显的变化。然而,Trios 4和CS 3700系统确实显示有统计学意义的差异(p<0.05)。结论:三种系统的边缘间隙均小于100µm,这是固定假体边缘和内配合中最重要的方面,因此三种系统均能生产出临床可接受的假体。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信