In vitro evaluation of prosthodontic impression on natural dentition: a comparison between traditional and digital techniques.

ORAL and Implantology Pub Date : 2017-02-14 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.11138/orl/2016.9.1S.021
G Malaguti, R Rossi, B Marziali, A Esposito, G Bruno, C Dariol, A DI Fiore
{"title":"<i>In vitro</i> evaluation of prosthodontic impression on natural dentition: a comparison between traditional and digital techniques.","authors":"G Malaguti,&nbsp;R Rossi,&nbsp;B Marziali,&nbsp;A Esposito,&nbsp;G Bruno,&nbsp;C Dariol,&nbsp;A DI Fiore","doi":"10.11138/orl/2016.9.1S.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this <i>in vitro</i> study is to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of zirconia core crowns manufactured following different digital and traditional workflows.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 6° taper shoulder prepared abutment tooth was used to produce 20 zirconia core crowns using four different scanning techniques: scanned directly with the extraoral lab scanner, scanned with intraoral scanner, dental impressions using individual dental tray and polyether, dental casts from a polyether impressions. Marginal and internal fits were evaluated with digital photography and the silicone replica method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Medium marginal gaps were 76,00 μm ± 28.9 for extraoral lab scanner, 80.50 μm ± 36,2 for intraoral scanner, 88.10 μm ± 34,8 for dental impression scan and 112,4 μm ± 37,2 for dental cast scan. Medium internal gaps were 23.20 μm ± 10,3 for extraoral lab scanner, 16.20 μm ± 8.3 for intraoral scanner, 27.20 μm ± 16.7 for dental impression scan and 30.20 μm ± 12.7 for dental cast scan.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Internal gap were extensively lower than 70 μm described in literature. Marginal fit was higher than ideal values for all the techniques but within the limit of clinical success. Intraoral scanners obtained the best results for internal gap.</p>","PeriodicalId":38303,"journal":{"name":"ORAL and Implantology","volume":"9 Suppl 1/2016 to N 4/2016","pages":"21-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.11138/orl/2016.9.1S.021","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ORAL and Implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11138/orl/2016.9.1S.021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of zirconia core crowns manufactured following different digital and traditional workflows.

Methods: A 6° taper shoulder prepared abutment tooth was used to produce 20 zirconia core crowns using four different scanning techniques: scanned directly with the extraoral lab scanner, scanned with intraoral scanner, dental impressions using individual dental tray and polyether, dental casts from a polyether impressions. Marginal and internal fits were evaluated with digital photography and the silicone replica method.

Results: Medium marginal gaps were 76,00 μm ± 28.9 for extraoral lab scanner, 80.50 μm ± 36,2 for intraoral scanner, 88.10 μm ± 34,8 for dental impression scan and 112,4 μm ± 37,2 for dental cast scan. Medium internal gaps were 23.20 μm ± 10,3 for extraoral lab scanner, 16.20 μm ± 8.3 for intraoral scanner, 27.20 μm ± 16.7 for dental impression scan and 30.20 μm ± 12.7 for dental cast scan.

Conclusion: Internal gap were extensively lower than 70 μm described in literature. Marginal fit was higher than ideal values for all the techniques but within the limit of clinical success. Intraoral scanners obtained the best results for internal gap.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自然牙列修复印模的体外评价:传统技术与数字技术的比较。
目的:本体外研究的目的是评估不同数字和传统工作流程制造的氧化锆核冠的边缘和内部配合度。方法:采用4种不同的扫描技术:口外实验室扫描仪直接扫描、口内扫描仪扫描、单独牙托印模和聚醚印模印模,以6°锥度肩为基牙制备20个氧化锆核冠。采用数码摄影和硅胶复制法评估边缘和内部配合。结果:口腔外实验室扫描的中等边缘间隙为76000 μm±28.9,口腔内扫描为80.50 μm±36,2,牙印模扫描为88.10 μm±34,8,铸型扫描为1124 μm±37,2。口腔外实验室扫描为23.20 μm±10.3,口内扫描为16.20 μm±8.3,印模扫描为27.20 μm±16.7,铸型扫描为30.20 μm±12.7。结论:文献描述的内间隙广泛小于70 μm。所有技术的边际拟合均高于理想值,但在临床成功的限度内。口腔内扫描对内间隙的检查效果最好。
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 去求助
来源期刊
ORAL and Implantology
ORAL and Implantology Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Risk assessment of colonization of legionella spp. in dental unit waterlines. Clinical protocol with digital cad/cam chairside workflow for the rehabilitation of severely worn dentition patients. Correlations between dental malocclusions, ocular motility, and convergence disorders: a cross-sectional study in growing subjects. Obstructive site localization in patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: a comparison between otolaryngologic data and cephalometric values. Prosthetic management of patients with oro-maxillo-facial defects: a long-term follow-up retrospective study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1