Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-09-2013 | Original Article

Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow

Authors: Paul Seelbach, Cora Brueckel, Bernd Wöstmann

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 7/2013

Abstract

Objectives

Digital impression techniques are advertised as an alternative to conventional impressioning. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of full ceramic crowns obtained from intraoral scans with Lava C.O.S. (3M ESPE), CEREC (Sirona), and iTero (Straumann) with conventional impression techniques.

Materials and methods

A model of a simplified molar was fabricated. Ten 2-step and 10 single-step putty-wash impressions were taken using silicone impression material and poured with type IV plaster. For both techniques 10 crowns were made of two materials (Lava zirconia, Cera E cast crowns). Then, 10 digital impressions (Lava C.O.S.) were taken and Lava zirconia crowns manufactured, 10 full ceramic crowns were fabricated with CEREC (Empress CAD) and 10 full ceramic crowns were made with iTero (Copran Zr-i). The accessible marginal inaccuracy (AMI) and the internal fit (IF) were measured.

Results

For AMI, the following results were obtained (mean ± SD): overall groups, 44 ± 26 μm; single-step putty-wash impression (Lava zirconia), 33 ± 19 μm; single-step putty-wash impression (Cera-E), 38 ± 25 μm; two-step putty-wash impression (Lava zirconia), 60 ± 30 μm; two-step putty-wash impression (Cera-E), 68 ± 29 μm; Lava C.O.S., 48 ± 25 μm; CEREC, 30 ± 17 μm; and iTero, 41 ± 16 μm. With regard to IF, errors were assessed as follows (mean ± SD): overall groups, 49 ± 25 μm; single-step putty-wash impression (Lava zirconia), 36 ± 5 μm; single-step putty-wash impression (Cera-E), 44 ± 22 μm; two-step putty-wash impression (Lava zirconia), 35 ± 7 μm; two-step putty-wash impression (Cera-E), 56 ± 36 μm; Lava C.O.S., 29 ± 7 μm; CEREC, 88 ± 20 μm; and iTero, 50 ± 2 μm.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be stated that digital impression systems allow the fabrication of fixed prosthetic restorations with similar accuracy as conventional impression methods.

Clinical relevance

Digital impression techniques can be regarded as a clinical alternative to conventional impressions for fixed dental restorations.

Samet N, Shohat M, Livny A, Weiss EI (2005) A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions. J Prosthet Dent 94(2):112–117PubMedCrossRef

Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12(1):11–28PubMed

Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38(7):553–559PubMedCrossRef

Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F (1987) The Cerec system: computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting. Quintessenz 38(3):457–470PubMed

Lee KB, Park CW, Kim KH, Kwon TY (2008) Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic crowns fabricated with two different CAD/CAM systems. Dent Mater J 27(3):422–426PubMedCrossRef

Tinschert J, Natt G, Spiekermann H, Anusavice K (2001) Marginal fit of alumina- and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent 26(4):367–374PubMed

Suarez MJ, Gonzalez de Villaumbrosia P, Pradies G, Lozano JF (2003) Comparison of the marginal fit of Procera AllCeram crowns with two finish lines. Int J Prosthodont 16(3):229–232PubMed

Bindl A, Mormann WH (2005) Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabil 32(6):441–447PubMedCrossRef

Schaefer O, Watts DC, Sigusch BW, Kuepper H, Guentsch A (2012) Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility. Dent Mater 28(3):320–326PubMedCrossRef

10.

Grasso JE, Nalbandian J, Sanford C, Bailit H (1985) Effect of restoration quality on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 53(1):14–19PubMedCrossRef

11.

Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD (1989) Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 62(4):405–408PubMedCrossRef

12.

Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8(4):283–294PubMed

13.

Bindl A, Windisch S, Mormann WH (1999) Full-ceramic CAD/CIM anterior crowns and copings. Int J Comput Dent 2(2):97–111PubMed

14.

da Costa JB (2010) Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D. Oper Dent 35(3):324–329PubMedCrossRef

15.

Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21PubMed

16.

Phark J, Oliveira AL (2012) Marginal fit of all-ceramic crowns using conventional and digital impressions. J Dent Res 91 (Spec Iss A):991. http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2012tampa/webprogram/Paper158085.html

17.

Kim M, Song H, Heo S (2012) Accuracy of an intraoral digital impression using parallel confocal imaging. J Dent Res 91 (Spec Iss B):995. http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2012rio/webprogram/Paper160149.html

18.

Kachalia PR, Geissberger MJ (2010) Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD/CAM technology. J Calif Dent Assoc 38(5):323–330PubMed

19.

Idris B, Houston F, Claffey N (1995) Comparison of the dimensional accuracy of one- and two-step techniques with the use of putty/wash addition silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 74(5):535–541PubMedCrossRef

20.

Wostmann B, Blosser T, Gouentenoudis M, Balkenhol M, Ferger P (2005) Influence of margin design on the fit of high-precious alloy restorations in patients. J Dent 33(7):611–618PubMedCrossRef

Title: Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow
Authors: Paul Seelbach
Cora Brueckel
Bernd Wöstmann
Publication date: 01-09-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 7/2013
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2013

Methodological quality of a systematic review on physical therapy for temporomandibular disorders: influence of hand search and quality scales—reply to a letter to the author

Are implants more reliable than severely compromised endodontically treated teeth as abutments for zirconia-based FPDs?

The influence of ambient lighting on the detection of small contrast elements in digital dental radiographs

Dentofacial characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Beneficial effect of methylprednisolone after mandibular third molar surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled split-mouth trial

Effects of probiotics in periodontal diseases: a systematic review