Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners.
Additional Document Info
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Conventional impression materials and techniques have been used successfully to fabricate fixed restorations. Recently, digital pathways have been developed, but insufficient data are available regarding their marginal accuracy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this invitro study was to compare the marginal gap discrepancy of lithium disilicate single crowns fabricated with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology by using both conventional and 2 digital impression techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One typodont maxillary right central incisor was prepared for a ceramic crown. Ten impressions were made by using each method: conventional with polyvinyl siloxane impression material, Lava COS (3M ESPE), and iTero (Cadent) intraoral scanning devices. Lithium disilicate (e.max CAD) crowns were fabricated with CAD/CAM technology, and the marginal gap was measured for each specimen at 4 points under magnification with a stereomicroscope. The mean measurement for each location and overall mean gap size by group were calculated. Statistically significant differences among the impression techniques were tested with F and t tests (=.05). RESULTS: The average (SD) gap for the conventional impression group was 112.3 (35.3) m. The digital impression groups had similar average gap sizes; the Lava group was 89.8 (25.4) m, and the iTero group was 89.6 (30.1) m. No statistically significant difference was found in the effects among impression techniques (P=.185) CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, digital and conventional impressions were found to produce crowns with similar marginal accuracy.