Comparative study of all-ceramic crowns obtained from conventional and digital impressions: clinical findings

• Published in: Clinical oral investigations Vol. 23; no. 4; pp. 1745 - 1751
• Main Authors: Berrendero, Santiago, Salido, Maria Paz, Ferreiroa, Alberto, Valverde, Arelhys, Pradíes, Guillermo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.04.2019; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Ceramics; Clinical aspects; Computer-Aided Design; Crowns; Data processing; Dental crowns; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dentistry; Humans; Medicine; Original Article; Retention; Silicones; Teeth; Zirconia; Zirconium; Digital impression; Clinical aspects; Intraoral scanner; Trios scanner; All-ceramic crowns; CAD/CAM
• ISSN: 1432-6981; 1436-3771
• DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2606-8

Objective To compare clinical aspects of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions. Methods Thirty patients with 30 posterior teeth with the need of a crown restoration were selected. Zirconia-based ceramic crowns were made using an intraoral digital impression system (TRIOS®, 3shape) and two-step silicone impression technique. Two external blinded operators evaluated the all-ceramic crowns. Five selection items were assessed of which four were clinical: “marginal fit,” “occlusal contacts,” “interproximal contact points,” and “primary retention.” Then, the last selection item “final selection” was assessed when the operators considering all the variables had to select which of the digital or conventional crown had the best clinical conditions. Data was analyzed using Kappa index test and the Pearson’s chi-square test ( α  = 0.05). Results For the items marginal fit and interproximal contact points, moderate agreement between the two operators was described and significant differences were found between the two study groups. Conversely, for the variables primary retention and occlusal contacts, the agreement between the operators was fair and no significant differences were found. For the final selection, a substantial agreement was reached between the two operators and significant differences were found between the two groups ( p  < 0.05). Conclusion In most cases and in a significant way, the digital crowns had better clinical conditions according to both evaluators. The digital crowns were statistically superior for the interproximal contact points and marginal fit. For the variables occlusal contacts and primary retention, no difference between the two groups was observed. Clinical significance Digital intraoral impressions can be used for manufacturing ceramic crowns, with the same or better clinical results as conventional impressions.