3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.J Prosthodont. 2014 Dec; 23(8):610-7.JP
PURPOSE
This in vitro study evaluated the 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and computer-aided-designed/computer-aided-manufactured (CAD/CAM) all-ceramic crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A dentoform tooth (#30) was prepared for an all-ceramic crown (master die). Thirty type IV definitive casts were made from 30 polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions. Thirty resin models were produced from thirty Lava Chairside Oral Scanner impressions. Thirty crowns were pressed in lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press; 15/impression technique). Thirty crowns were milled from lithium disilicate blocks (IPS e.max CAD; 15/impression technique) using the E4D scanner and milling engine. The master die and the intaglio of the crowns were digitized using a 3D laser coordinate measurement machine with accuracy of ±0.00898 mm. For each specimen a separate data set was created for the Qualify 2012 software. The digital master die and the digital intaglio of each crown were merged using best-fitting alignment. An area above the margin with 0.75 mm occlusal-gingival width circumferentially was defined. The 3D marginal fit of each specimen was an average of all 3D gap values on that area. For the 2D measurements, the marginal gap was measured at two standardized points (on the margin and at 0.75 mm above the margin), from standardized facial-lingual and mesial-distal digitized sections. One-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference and two-way ANOVA tests were used, separately, for statistical analysis of the 3D and 2D marginal data (alpha = 0.05).
RESULTS
One-way ANOVA revealed that both 3D and 2D mean marginal gap for group A: PVS impression/IPS e.max Press (0.048 mm ± 0.009 and 0.040 mm ± 0.009) were significantly smaller than those obtained from the other three groups (p < 0.0001), while no significant differences were found among groups B: PVS impression/IPS e.max CAD (0.088 mm ± 0.024 and 0.076 mm ± 0.023), C: digital impression/IPS e.max Press (0.089 mm ± 0.020 and 0.075 mm ± 0.015) and D: digital impression/IPS e.max CAD (0.084 mm ± 0.021 and 0.074 mm ± 0.026). The results of two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between impression techniques and crown fabrication methods for both 3D and 2D measurements.
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of PVS impression method and press fabrication technique produced the most accurate 3D and 2D marginal fits.
