In-vitro evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated using digital scanning technologies

• Published in: The journal of advanced prosthodontics Vol. 13; no. 6; pp. 373 - 384
• Main Authors: Ozal, Cise, Ulusoy, Mutahhar
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Korean
• Published: 2021
• Subjects: Zirconia; Dental internal adaptation; Dental impression techniques; Dental marginal adaptation; Computer-aided design
• ISSN: 2005-7806; 2005-7814

PURPOSE. This study aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations that were designed by using the data obtained with the aid of intraoral and laboratory scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS. For the fabrication of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations using impressions taken from the maxillary master cast, plaster cast was created and scanned in laboratory scanners (InEos X5 and D900L). The main cast was also scanned with different intraoral scanners (Omnicam [OMNI], Primescan [PS], Trios 3 [T3], Trios 4 [T4]) (n = 12 per group). Zirconia fixed partial dentures were virtually designed, produced from presintered block, and subsequently sintered. Marginal and internal discrepancy values (in ㎛) were measured by using silicone replica method under stereomicroscope. Data were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis tests (P<.05). RESULTS. In terms of marginal adaptation, the measurements on the canine tooth indicated better performance with intraoral scanners than those in laboratory scanners, but there was no difference among intraoral scanners (P<.05). In the premolar tooth, PS had the lowest marginal (86.9 ± 19.2 ㎛) and axial (92.4 ± 14.8 ㎛), and T4 had the lowest axio-occlusal (89.4 ± 15.6 ㎛) and occlusal (89.1 ± 13.9 ㎛) discrepancy value. In both canine and premolar teeth, the D900L was found to be the most marginally and internally inconsistent scanner. CONCLUSION. Within the limits of the study, marginal and internal discrepancy values were generally lower in intraoral scanners than in laboratory scanners. Marginal discrepancy values of scanners were clinically acceptable (< 120 ㎛), except D900L.