Cargando…

Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the quality of digital workflows generated by different scanners (Intra-oral digital scanners (I.O.S.s)) focusing on marginal fit analysis. A customized chrome-cobalt (Cr-Co) implant abutment simulating a maxillary right first molar was fixed in hemi-max...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ferrini, Francesco, Sannino, Gianpaolo, Chiola, Carlo, Capparé, Paolo, Gastaldi, Giorgio, Gherlone, Enrico Felice
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6406818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30769768
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040544
_version_ 1783401411494543360
author Ferrini, Francesco
Sannino, Gianpaolo
Chiola, Carlo
Capparé, Paolo
Gastaldi, Giorgio
Gherlone, Enrico Felice
author_facet Ferrini, Francesco
Sannino, Gianpaolo
Chiola, Carlo
Capparé, Paolo
Gastaldi, Giorgio
Gherlone, Enrico Felice
author_sort Ferrini, Francesco
collection PubMed
description The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the quality of digital workflows generated by different scanners (Intra-oral digital scanners (I.O.S.s)) focusing on marginal fit analysis. A customized chrome-cobalt (Cr-Co) implant abutment simulating a maxillary right first molar was fixed in hemi-maxillary stone model and scanned by eight different I.O.S.s: Omnicam(®) (Denstply Sirona, Verona, Italy) CS3500(®), CS3600(®), (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, GA, USA), True Definition Scanner(®) (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), DWIO(®) (Dental Wings, Montreal, Quebec, Canada), PlanScan(®) (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland), 3D PROGRESS Plus(®) (MHT, Verona, Italy), TRIOS 3(®) (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Nine scans were performed by each tested I.O.S. and 72 copings were designed using a dental computer-assisted-design/computer-assisted-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software (exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). According to CAD data, zirconium dioxide (ZrO(2)) copings were digitally milled (Roland DWX-50, Irvine, CA, USA). Scanning electron microscope (SEM) direct vision allowed for marginal gap measurements in eight points for each specimen. Descriptive analysis was performed using mean, standard deviation, and median, while the Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to determine whether the marginal discrepancies were significantly different between each group (significance level p < 0.05). The overall mean marginal gap value and standard deviation were 53.45 ± 30.52 μm. The minimum mean value (40.04 ± 18.90 μm) was recorded by PlanScan(®), then 3D PROGRESS Plus(®) (40.20 ± 21.91 μm), True Definition Scanner(®) (40.82 ± 26.19 μm), CS3500(®) (54.82 ± 28.86 μm) CS3600(®) (59,67 ± 28.72 μm), Omnicam(®) (61.57 ± 38.59 μm), DWIO(®) (62.49 ± 31.54 μm), while the maximum mean value (67.95 ± 30.41 μm) was recorded by TRIOS 3(®). The Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed a statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.5) in the mean marginal gaps between copings produced by 3D PROGRESS Plus(®), PlanScan, True Definition Scanner, and the other evaluated I.O.S.s. The use of an I.O.S. for digital impressions may be a viable alternative to analog techniques. Although in this in vitro study PlanScan(®), 3D PROGRESS Plus(®) and True Definition Scanner(®) may have showed the best performances, all I.O.S.s tested could provide clinically encouraging results especially in terms of marginal accuracy, since mean marginal gap values were all within the clinically acceptable threshold of 120 μm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6406818
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64068182019-03-21 Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns Ferrini, Francesco Sannino, Gianpaolo Chiola, Carlo Capparé, Paolo Gastaldi, Giorgio Gherlone, Enrico Felice Int J Environ Res Public Health Article The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the quality of digital workflows generated by different scanners (Intra-oral digital scanners (I.O.S.s)) focusing on marginal fit analysis. A customized chrome-cobalt (Cr-Co) implant abutment simulating a maxillary right first molar was fixed in hemi-maxillary stone model and scanned by eight different I.O.S.s: Omnicam(®) (Denstply Sirona, Verona, Italy) CS3500(®), CS3600(®), (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, GA, USA), True Definition Scanner(®) (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), DWIO(®) (Dental Wings, Montreal, Quebec, Canada), PlanScan(®) (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland), 3D PROGRESS Plus(®) (MHT, Verona, Italy), TRIOS 3(®) (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Nine scans were performed by each tested I.O.S. and 72 copings were designed using a dental computer-assisted-design/computer-assisted-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software (exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). According to CAD data, zirconium dioxide (ZrO(2)) copings were digitally milled (Roland DWX-50, Irvine, CA, USA). Scanning electron microscope (SEM) direct vision allowed for marginal gap measurements in eight points for each specimen. Descriptive analysis was performed using mean, standard deviation, and median, while the Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to determine whether the marginal discrepancies were significantly different between each group (significance level p < 0.05). The overall mean marginal gap value and standard deviation were 53.45 ± 30.52 μm. The minimum mean value (40.04 ± 18.90 μm) was recorded by PlanScan(®), then 3D PROGRESS Plus(®) (40.20 ± 21.91 μm), True Definition Scanner(®) (40.82 ± 26.19 μm), CS3500(®) (54.82 ± 28.86 μm) CS3600(®) (59,67 ± 28.72 μm), Omnicam(®) (61.57 ± 38.59 μm), DWIO(®) (62.49 ± 31.54 μm), while the maximum mean value (67.95 ± 30.41 μm) was recorded by TRIOS 3(®). The Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed a statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.5) in the mean marginal gaps between copings produced by 3D PROGRESS Plus(®), PlanScan, True Definition Scanner, and the other evaluated I.O.S.s. The use of an I.O.S. for digital impressions may be a viable alternative to analog techniques. Although in this in vitro study PlanScan(®), 3D PROGRESS Plus(®) and True Definition Scanner(®) may have showed the best performances, all I.O.S.s tested could provide clinically encouraging results especially in terms of marginal accuracy, since mean marginal gap values were all within the clinically acceptable threshold of 120 μm. MDPI 2019-02-14 2019-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6406818/ /pubmed/30769768 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040544 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ferrini, Francesco
Sannino, Gianpaolo
Chiola, Carlo
Capparé, Paolo
Gastaldi, Giorgio
Gherlone, Enrico Felice
Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns
title Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns
title_full Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns
title_fullStr Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns
title_full_unstemmed Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns
title_short Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns
title_sort influence of intra-oral scanner (i.o.s.) on the marginal accuracy of cad/cam single crowns
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6406818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30769768
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040544
work_keys_str_mv AT ferrinifrancesco influenceofintraoralscanneriosonthemarginalaccuracyofcadcamsinglecrowns
AT sanninogianpaolo influenceofintraoralscanneriosonthemarginalaccuracyofcadcamsinglecrowns
AT chiolacarlo influenceofintraoralscanneriosonthemarginalaccuracyofcadcamsinglecrowns
AT capparepaolo influenceofintraoralscanneriosonthemarginalaccuracyofcadcamsinglecrowns
AT gastaldigiorgio influenceofintraoralscanneriosonthemarginalaccuracyofcadcamsinglecrowns
AT gherloneenricofelice influenceofintraoralscanneriosonthemarginalaccuracyofcadcamsinglecrowns