J Adv Prosthodont.  2017 Jun;9(3):208-216. 10.4047/jap.2017.9.3.208.

Adaptation of zirconia crowns created by conventional versus optical impression: in vitro study

• Cetik S
• Bahrami B
• Fossoyeux
• Atash R

• KMID: 2382608
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.3.208

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to compare the precision of optical impression (Trios, 3Shape) versus that of conventional impression (Imprint IV, 3M-ESPE) with three different margins (shoulder, chamfer, and knife-edge) on Frasaco teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The sample comprised of 60 zirconia half-crowns, divided into six groups according to the type of impression and margin. Scanning electron microscopy enabled us to analyze the gap between the zirconia crowns and the Frasaco teeth, using ImageJ software, based on eight reproducible and standardized measuring points.
RESULTS
No statistically significant difference was found between conventional impressions and optical impressions, except for two of the eight points. A statistically significant difference was observed between the three margin types; the chamfer and knife-edge finishing lines appeared to offer better adaptation results than the shoulder margin.
CONCLUSION
Zirconia crowns created from optical impression and those created from conventional impression present similar adaptation. While offering identical results, the former have many advantages. In view of our findings, we believe the chamfer margin should be favored.

Keyword

Crown; Zirconia; Optical impression; Margin preparation

MeSH Terms

Crowns*
In Vitro Techniques*
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Shoulder
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Zirconia crown preparation assisted with computer (3Shape Software).

• 

  Fig. 2 Electronic microscopic sections. (A) Group 1. Conventional impression with shoulder preparation, (B) Group 2. Conventional impression with fillet preparation, (C) Group 3. Conventional impression with chamfer preparation, (D) Group 4. Optical impression with shoulder preparation, (E) Group 5. Optical impression with fillet preparation, (F) Group 6. Optical impression with chamfer preparation.

• 

  Fig. 3 Confidence interval (95%) for 8 points (A - H), in conventional and optical impressions with 3 types of preparation (shoulder, chamfer, knife-edge referred as fillet). Blue: conventional impression; green: optical impression.

• 

  Fig. 4 Boxplots measuring spaces for the 8 points (A - H), in each groups (1 to 6).

Reference

1. Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60:72–84.

2. Borba M, Miranda WG Jr, Cesar PF, Griggs JA, Bona AD. Evaluation of the adaptation of zirconia-based fixed partial dentures using micro-CT technology. Braz Oral Res. 2013; 27:396–402.

3. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:1461–1471.

4. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont. 2016; 08. 02.

5. Mahl D, Glenz F, Marinello CP. Digital implant impression taking - an overview. Swiss Dent J. 2014; 124:165–186.

6. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: A review. J Prosthodont. 2015; 24:313–321.

7. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont. 2016; 25:282–287.

8. Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114:554–559.

9. Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradíes G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20:2403–2410.

10. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont. 2016; 02. 08.

11. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20:799–806.

12. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry IL, Thomas GW, Qian F. Internal fit of pressed and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113:304–309.

13. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20:1495–1504.

14. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:555–560.

15. Pradíes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martínez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent. 2015; 43:201–208.

16. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Güth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20:283–289.

17. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014; 41:853–874.

18. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, Qian F. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont. 2014; 23:610–617.

19. Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent. 2007; 35:903–908.

20. Aboushelib MN. Fatigue and fracture resistance of zirconia crowns prepared with different finish line designs. J Prosthodont. 2012; 21:22–27.

21. Jalalian E, Atashkar B, Rostami R. The effect of preparation design on the fracture resistance of zirconia crown copings (Computer Associated Design/Computer Associated Machine, CAD/CAM System). J Dent (Tehran). 2011; 8:123.

22. Beuer F, Aggstaller H, Edelhoff D, Gernet W. Effect of preparation design on the fracture resistance of zirconia crown copings. Dent Mater J. 2008; 27:362–367.

23. Chai J, Chong KH. Probability of failure of machined zirconia dental ceramic core materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22:340–341.

24. Comlekoglu M, Dundar M, Ozcan M, Gungor M, Gokce B, Artunc C. Influence of cervical finish line type on the marginal adaptation of zirconia ceramic crowns. Oper Dent. 2009; 34:586–592.

25. Aykul H, Toparli M, Dalkiz M. A calculation of stress distribution in metal-porcelain crowns by using three-dimensional finite element method. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29:381–386.

26. Mitov G, Anastassova-Yoshida Y, Nothdurft FP, von See C, Pospiech P. Influence of the preparation design and artificial aging on the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8:30–36.

27. Komine F, Iwai T, Kobayashi K, Matsumura H. Marginal and internal adaptation of zirconium dioxide ceramic copings and crowns with different finish line designs. Dent Mater J. 2007; 26:659–664.

28. Re D, Cerutti F, Augusti G, Cerutti A, Augusti D. Comparison of marginal fit of Lava CAD/CAM crown-copings with two finish lines. Int J Esthet Dent. 2014; 9:426–435.

29. Euán R, Figueras-Álvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Oliver-Parra R. Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:155–162.