3D and 2D Marginal Fit of Pressed and CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Crowns Made from Digital and Conventional Impressions

Anadioti, Evanthia; Aquilino, Steven A.; Gratton, David G.; Holloway, Julie A.; Denry, Isabelle; Thomas, Geb; Qian, Fang

doi:10.1111/jopr.12180

Cited by 143 publications

(150 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Anadioti and colleagues 10) compared the marginal fit of E.max press and E.max CAD crowns in combination with conventional (PVS) and optical impressions (Lava TM C.O.S). The study was divided into 4 groups: Group 1 (PVS+Press), group 2 (PVS+CAD), group 3 (Optical+Press), group 4 (Optical+CAD).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…IPS E.max lithium disilicate, introduced in 2005 by Ivoclar Vivadent (AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein), is a material where lithium disilicate crystals (SiO are embedded into a matrix of glass to minimize microcrack propagation 8) , thereby improving mechanical stability 9) . IPS E.max lithium disilicate restorations can be made using either lost-wax hot pressing techniques (IPS E.max Press) or computer-aided-designed/computeraided manufactured (CAD/CAM) milling procedures (IPS E.max CAD) either in the dental office (chairside CAD/CAM systems) or in the dental laboratory 10) . CAD/CAM has been available for dental use since its development by Duret in France in the 1970s (System Duret CAD/CAM) 11) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The marginal fit of E.max Press and E.max CAD lithium disilicate restorations: A critical review

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This critical review aimed to assess the vertical marginal gap that was present when E.max lithium disilicate-based restoration (Press and CAD) are fabricated in-vitro. Published articles reporting vertical marginal gap measurements of in-vitro restorations that had been fabricated from E.Max lithium disilicate were sought with an electronic search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and hand search of selected dental journals. The outcomes were reviewed qualitatively. The majority of studies that compared the marginal fit of E.max press and E.max CAD restorations, found that the E.max lithium disilicate restorations fabricated with the press technique had significantly smaller marginal gaps than those fabricated with CAD technique. This research indicates that E.max lithium disilicate restorations fabricated with the press technique have measurably smaller marginal gaps when compared with those fabricated with CAD techniques within in-vitro environments. The marginal gaps achieved by the restorations across all groups were within a clinically acceptable range.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The marginal fit of E.max Press and E.max CAD lithium disilicate restorations: A critical review

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two in vitro trials compared the conventional workflow with the polyvinyl siloxane impression and heat-press technique with the digital workflow with optical scans and CAD/CAM for the fabrication of lithium disilicate crowns. 9,12 In 1 study, the conventional impressions were combined with the heat-press technique or with the CAD/CAM fabrication (E4D system). 9 Additionally, the digital Lava C.O.S.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9,12 In 1 study, the conventional impressions were combined with the heat-press technique or with the CAD/CAM fabrication (E4D system). 9 Additionally, the digital Lava C.O.S. impression was combined with the press technique or with the CAD/CAM fabrication.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit

Zeltner

Sailer

Mühlemann

et al. 2017

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Trials comparing the overall performance of digital with that of conventional workflows in restorative dentistry are needed. PURPOSE The purpose of the third part of a series of investigations was to test whether the marginal and internal fit of monolithic crowns fabricated with fully digital workflows differed from that of crowns fabricated with the conventional workflow. MATERIAL AND METHODS In each of 10 participants, 5 monolithic lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated for the same abutment tooth according to a randomly generated sequence. Digital workflows were applied for the fabrication of 4 crowns using the Lava, iTero, Cerec inLab, and Cerec infinident systems. The conventional workflow included a polyvinyl siloxane impression, manual waxing, and heat-press technique. The discrepancy between the crown and the tooth was registered using the replica technique with polyvinyl siloxane material. The dimensions of the marginal discrepancy (Discrepancymarginal) and the internal discrepancy in 4 different regions of interest (Discrepancyshoulder, Discrepancyaxial, Discrepancycusp, and Discrepancyocclusal) were assessed using light microscopy. Post hoc Student t test with Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences (=.05). RESULTS Discrepancymarginal was 83.6 ±51.1 m for the Cerec infinident, 90.4 ±66.1 m for the conventional, 94.3 ±58.3 m for the Lava, 127.8 ±58.3 m for the iTero, and 141.5 ±106.2 m for the Cerec inLab workflow. The differences between the treatment modalities were not statistically significant (P>.05). Discrepancyshoulder was 82.2 ±42.4 m for the Cerec infinident, 97.2 ±63.8 m for the conventional, 103.4 ±52.0 m for the Lava, 133.5 ±73.0 m for the iTero, and 140.0 ±86.6 m for the Cerec inLab workflow. Only the differences between the Cerec infinident and the Cerec inLab were statistically significant (P=.036). The conventionally fabricated crowns revealed significantly lower values in Discrepancycusp and Discrepancyocclusal than all the crowns fabricated with digital workflows (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS In terms of marginal crown fit, no significant differences were found between the conventional and digital workflows for the fabrication of monolithic lithium disilicate crowns. In the occlusal regions, the conventionally manufactured crowns revealed better fit than the digitally fabricated crowns. Chairside milling resulted in less favorable crown fit than centralized milling production. Purpose. The purpose of the fourth part of a series of investigations was to test whether the marginal and internal fit of monolithic crowns fabricated with fully digital workflows differed from that of crowns fabricated with the conventional workflow. Material and methods.In each of 10 participants, 5 monolithic lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated for the same abutment tooth according to a randomly generated sequence.Digital workflows were applied for the fabrication of 4 crowns with Lava, iTero, Cerec inLab, and Cerec infinident systems. The conventional workflow ...

show abstract

Digital Technologies in Clinical Restorative Dentistry

Rutkūnas¹,

Borusevicius²,

Gečiauskaitė³

et al. 2020

Practical Advanced Periodontal Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3D and 2D Marginal Fit of Pressed and CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Crowns Made from Digital and Conventional Impressions

Abstract: The combination of PVS impression method and press fabrication technique produced the most accurate 3D and 2D marginal fits.

Cited by 143 publications

References 27 publications

The marginal fit of E.max Press and E.max CAD lithium disilicate restorations: A critical review

The marginal fit of E.max Press and E.max CAD lithium disilicate restorations: A critical review

Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit

Digital Technologies in Clinical Restorative Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About