Cargando…

A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner

BACKGROUND: Intraoral scanners have been developing during last years. The aim of this study was to know if digital impressions achieve a marginal adaptation in overlays as well as conventional impressions with silicone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-two extracted molars were selected. The samples wer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: García-Cuesta, Carla, Faus-Llácer, Vicente, Zubizarreta-Macho, Álvaro, Botello-Torres, René, Faus-Matoses, Vicente
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8106928/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33981394
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.58140
_version_ 1783689859471245312
author García-Cuesta, Carla
Faus-Llácer, Vicente
Zubizarreta-Macho, Álvaro
Botello-Torres, René
Faus-Matoses, Vicente
author_facet García-Cuesta, Carla
Faus-Llácer, Vicente
Zubizarreta-Macho, Álvaro
Botello-Torres, René
Faus-Matoses, Vicente
author_sort García-Cuesta, Carla
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Intraoral scanners have been developing during last years. The aim of this study was to know if digital impressions achieve a marginal adaptation in overlays as well as conventional impressions with silicone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-two extracted molars were selected. The samples were prepared for MOD overlays. The teeth were divided into two groups (n=31). Group 1: impressions were made with silicone (Express™ Impression, 3M ESPE) and overlays were manufactured with Sinfony composite (3M ESPE) by the laboratory technician. Group 2: impressions were taken with the scanner True Definition (TD, 3M ESPE) and under Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM Restorative composite (3M ESPE) were produced the restorations. Under 32x magnification images of vestibular, lingual, mesial and distal were capture in all the samples. Then the fit of the restorations was evaluated before and after cementation. Data were analysed statistically applying ANOVA and Bonferroni test. RESULTS: The marginal gap was better in TD group before (169,76 ± 54,15 µm) and after (145,16 ± 57,89 µm) cementation than in the silicone group (190,89 ± 58,18 µm) (187,47 ± 81,29 µm). The lowest marginal gap was in oclusal surface and the higher value was in the proximal margin for all the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions regarding marginal adaptation achieve better results than conventional impressions. Key words:Composite onlays, overlays, restorative, CAD/CAM, intraoral scanner, silicone impressions, marginal adaptation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8106928
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81069282021-05-11 A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner García-Cuesta, Carla Faus-Llácer, Vicente Zubizarreta-Macho, Álvaro Botello-Torres, René Faus-Matoses, Vicente J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: Intraoral scanners have been developing during last years. The aim of this study was to know if digital impressions achieve a marginal adaptation in overlays as well as conventional impressions with silicone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-two extracted molars were selected. The samples were prepared for MOD overlays. The teeth were divided into two groups (n=31). Group 1: impressions were made with silicone (Express™ Impression, 3M ESPE) and overlays were manufactured with Sinfony composite (3M ESPE) by the laboratory technician. Group 2: impressions were taken with the scanner True Definition (TD, 3M ESPE) and under Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM Restorative composite (3M ESPE) were produced the restorations. Under 32x magnification images of vestibular, lingual, mesial and distal were capture in all the samples. Then the fit of the restorations was evaluated before and after cementation. Data were analysed statistically applying ANOVA and Bonferroni test. RESULTS: The marginal gap was better in TD group before (169,76 ± 54,15 µm) and after (145,16 ± 57,89 µm) cementation than in the silicone group (190,89 ± 58,18 µm) (187,47 ± 81,29 µm). The lowest marginal gap was in oclusal surface and the higher value was in the proximal margin for all the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions regarding marginal adaptation achieve better results than conventional impressions. Key words:Composite onlays, overlays, restorative, CAD/CAM, intraoral scanner, silicone impressions, marginal adaptation. Medicina Oral S.L. 2021-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8106928/ /pubmed/33981394 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.58140 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Medicina Oral S.L. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
García-Cuesta, Carla
Faus-Llácer, Vicente
Zubizarreta-Macho, Álvaro
Botello-Torres, René
Faus-Matoses, Vicente
A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner
title A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner
title_full A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner
title_fullStr A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner
title_short A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner
title_sort comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8106928/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33981394
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.58140
work_keys_str_mv AT garciacuestacarla acomparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner
AT fausllacervicente acomparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner
AT zubizarretamachoalvaro acomparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner
AT botellotorresrene acomparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner
AT fausmatosesvicente acomparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner
AT garciacuestacarla comparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner
AT fausllacervicente comparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner
AT zubizarretamachoalvaro comparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner
AT botellotorresrene comparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner
AT fausmatosesvicente comparisonofthemarginaladaptationofcompositeoverlaysfabricatedwithsiliconeandanintraoralscanner