Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow

Seelbach, Paul; Brueckel, Cora; Wöstmann, Bernd

doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4

Cited by 301 publications

(272 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

222

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent in vitro trial, the conventional impressions were compared with the digital impressions for the fabrication of single crowns made of different materials. 10 In this study, the digital impression systems (Cerec, Lava C.O.S, and iTero) rendered similar marginal crown fit in comparison with the conventional impressions with polyvinyl siloxane.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] A recent systematic review assessed the results of the marginal fit for crowns fabricated with 17 different fabrication processes. 16 The analysis revealed a wide range in the results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…4,14,15,19,20 This procedure cannot be performed intraorally; therefore, many in vivo studies use an indirect approach and verify the impression trueness by measuring the fit of the definitive restoration based on that impression. 2,[21][22][23][24][25] Repeated impressions can be made from one dental arch and compared to show the precision of the impression procedure. 3,21 The past 30 years have seen the development of the digital intraoral impression technique.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2,[21][22][23][24][25] Repeated impressions can be made from one dental arch and compared to show the precision of the impression procedure. 3,21 The past 30 years have seen the development of the digital intraoral impression technique. 6,10,[27][28][29] This method replicates the intraoral situation using a 3-dimensional (3D) camera to capture the data in a digital format.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…31 However, the accuracy of digital impression for different clinical applications is controversial, even though several studies show that digital and conventional impressions produce restorations of equal quality. 2,21,22,26 The conventional linear distance measurement is limited to certain geometric forms. To assess the accuracy of impression materials, the clinical situation should be optimal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

Ender

Attin

Mehl

2016

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

412

437

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Digital impression systems have undergone significant development in recent years, but few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo, particularly compared with conventional impression techniques. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vivo study was to investigate the precision of conventional and digital methods for complete-arch impressions. MA-TERIAL AND METHODS: Complete-arch impressions were obtained using 5 conventional (polyether, POE; vinylsiloxanether, VSE; direct scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES; digitized scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES-D; and irreversible hydrocolloid, ALG) and 7 digital (CEREC Bluecam, CER; CEREC Omnicam, OC; Cadent iTero, ITE; Lava COS, LAV; Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; 3Shape Trios, TRI; and 3Shape Trios Color, TRC) techniques. Impressions were made 3 times each in 5 participants (n=15). The impressions were then compared within and between the test groups. The cast surfaces were measured point-to-point using the signed nearest neighbor method. Precision was calculated from the (90%-10%)/2 percentile value. RESULTS: The precision ranged from 12.3 m (VSE) to 167.2 m (ALG), with the highest precision in the VSE and VSES groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly according to the impression method. Conventional impressions showed the highest accuracy across the complete dental arch in all groups, except for the ALG group. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the complete arch cast; however, they achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials. techniques. Impressions were made 3 times each in 5 participants (n = 15). The impressions were then compared within and between the test groups. The cast surfaces were measured point-to-point using the signed nearest neighbor method. Precision was calculated from the (90%-10%)/2 percentile value.Results. The precision ranged from 12.3 µm (VSE) to 167.2 µm (ALG), with the highest precision in the VSE and VSES groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly according to the impression method. Conventional impressions showed the highest accuracy across the complete dental arch in all groups, except for the ALG group.Conclusions. Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the 2 complete arch cast; however, they achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONSThe accuracy of complete-arch impression casts differs significantly between conventional techniques and digital impression systems. Local deviations are greater in casts generated using digital impression systems; however, digital systems show adequate accuracy across the complete arch. As digital impression systems continue to improve, they may prove to be an equivalent or better alternative to convent...

show abstract

Digital Impressions

Hack¹,

Bloom²,

Patzelt³

2015

Clinical Applications of Digital Dental Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow

Abstract: Digital impression techniques can be regarded as a clinical alternative to conventional impressions for fixed dental restorations.

Cited by 301 publications

References 11 publications

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

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

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

Digital Impressions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About