1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care
  4. Volume 2024, Issue 8
  5. Article
8 - The 3rd Mustansiriyah International Dental Conference
  • ISSN: 1999-7086
  • EISSN: 1999-7094

Abstract

The intraoral scanner in the market contends with challenges, specifically in accurately detecting metallic surfaces of prostheses affected on the fitness of the restoration; therefore, several scanning agents were used to evaluate the internal fit of the zirconia crown.

45 prefabricated titanium abutments (n = 45) were selected for this study. Samples were divided into three groups (n = 15 each) according to the application of scanning aid agents. Group 1 (G1: control) used a scan body; G2: used liquid paint as the scanning aid agent; and G3: used powder spray as the scanning aid agent. Each abutment was applied with an imaging scanning aid agent to scan and mill the crown. All scans were performed using the same intraoral scanner, and the internal fit was analyzed digitally using digital silicone replica techniques and Geomagic Control X software. Statistical analysis was performed using the one-way ANOVA test.

There was no significant difference among the three groups.

Scanning aid agents showed similar accuracies for the internal fit of the crown, with no significant differences observed.

© 2024 Rajab, Jasim, licensee HBKU Press.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.midc.19
2024-12-09
2024-12-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jemtac/2024/8/jemtac.2024.midc.19.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.midc.19&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. El-Dessouky A, Salama MM, Shakal MA, Korsel AM. Marginal Adaptation of CAD/CAM Zirconia-Based Crown During Fabrication Steps. Tanta Dent J. 2015; 12:(2):81–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tdj.2014.12.002
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in Measurement of Marginal Fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62:405–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90170-4
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Mosa MO, Ibraheem AF, Hussein HM. Digital Evaluation of the Trueness and Fitting Accuracy of a Three-Unit Fixed Zirconium Bridge Fabricated from Different Types of Zirconia and Different Marginal Cement Space Thickness. Eur J Gen Dent. 2024; 13:(1):30–6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1777010
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Kahdim AKJ. Comparison the Marginal and Internal Fitness of Veneered and Anatomical Zirconia Crowns Milled by Two Different CAD/CAM Systems (An in Vitro Study). Mustansiryiah Dent J. 2022; 18:(2):238–44. https://doi.org/10.32828/mdj.v18i2.926
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Naik VB, Jain AK, Rao RD, Naik BD. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Ceramic and Resin Inlays, Onlays, and Overlays: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis. J Conserv Dent. 2022; 25: 347–55:. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_184_22
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Çin V, İzgi AD, Kale E, Yilmaz B. Marginal and Internal Fit of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns Fabricated by Using Two Different CAD-CAM Workflows: An In Vitro Study. Prosthesis. 2023; 5:35–47. https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis5010003
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Srimaneepong V, Heboyan A, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Marya A, Fernandes GVO, Rokaya D. Fixed Prosthetic Restorations and Periodontal Health: A Narrative Review. J Funct Biomater. 2022; 13:(1):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13010015
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mormann WH, Reich S, Kadhum R. Intraoral Scanning Systems - A Current Overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015; 18:(2):101–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques: Evaluation of Patients’ Perception, Treatment Comfort, Effectiveness, and Clinical Outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Lim JH, Mangal U, Nam NE, Choi SH, Shim JS, Kim JE. A Comparison of Accuracy of Different Dental Restorative Materials between Intraoral Scanning and Conventional Impression-Taking: An In Vitro Study. Materials. 2021; 14:(8):2060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14082060
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Oh HS, Lim YJ, Kim B, Kim MJ, Kwon HB, Baek YW. Effect of Scanning-Aid Agents on the Scanning Accuracy in Specially Designed Metallic Models: A Laboratory Study. PLoS One. 2022May5; 17:(5):e0267742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267742
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Motel Constantin E, Kirchner E, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study. J Prosthodont. 2019; 29:(4):309–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13131
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Jang D, Son K, Lee K-B. A Comparative Study of the Fitness and Trueness of a Three-Unit Fixed Dental Prosthesis Fabricated Using Two Digital Workflows. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019; 11:(5):277–84. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142778
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee K, Son K, Lee KB. Effects of Trueness and Surface Microhardness on the Fitness of Ceramic Crowns. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020; 10:1858. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10051858
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ali Majeed Z, Hasan Jasim H. Digital Evaluation of Trueness and Fitting Accuracy of Co-Cr Crown Copings Fabricated by Different Manufacturing Technologies. Cureus. 2023Jun1; 15:(6):e39819. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.39819
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions with Intraoral Scanners. A Systematic Review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10:(Suppl. 1):101–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Pedroche LO, Bernardes SR, Leão MP, Kintopp CC, Correr GM, Ornaghi BP, et al. Marginal and Internal Fit of Zirconia Copings Obtained Using Different Digital Scanning Methods. Braz Oral Res. 2016; 30:e113. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0113
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Nejatidanesh F, Shakibamehr AH, Savabi O. Comparison of Marginal and Internal Adaptation of CAD/CAM and Conventional Cement Retained Implant-Supported Single Crowns. Implant Dent. 2016Feb; 25:(1):103–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000346
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Prudente MS, Davi LR, Nabbout KO, Prado CJ, Pereira LM, Zancopé K, et al. Influence of Scanner, Powder Application, and Adjustments on CAD-CAM Crown Misfit. J Prosthet Dent. 2018Mar; 119:(3):377–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.024
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Att W, Hoischen T, Gerds T, Strub JR. Marginal Adaptation of All-Ceramic Crowns on Implant Abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008Dec; 10:(4):218–25. 1https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00079.x
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Zeller S. Accuracy of Three Digital Workflows for Implant Abutment and Crown Fabrication Using a Digital Measuring Technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121:(2):276–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.026
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Wang H, Feng Q, Li N, Xu S. Evaluation of Metal-Ceramic Bond Characteristics of Three Dental Co-Cr Alloys Prepared with Different Fabrication Techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2016Dec;116(6):916–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.002
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Moris IC, Faria AC, Ribeiro RF, Rodrigues RC. Abutments with Reduced Diameter for Both Cement and Screw Retentions: Analysis of Failure Modes and Misfit of Abutment-Crown-Connections After Cyclic Loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017Apr; 28:(4):432–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12816
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Pan Y, Tsoi JK, Lam WY, Pow EH. Implant Framework Misfit: A Systematic Review on Assessment Methods and Clinical Complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021Apr; 23:(2):244-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12968
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kirschneck C, Kamuf B, Putsch C, Chhatwani S, Bizhang M, Danesh G. Conformity, Reliability and Validity of Digital Dental Models Created by Clinical Intraoral Scanning and Extraoral Plaster Model Digitization Workflows. Comput Biol Med. 2018Sep1; 100:114–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.06.035
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Vlaar ST, van der Zel JM. Accuracy of Dental Digitizers. Int Dent J. 2006; 56:(5):301–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1875-595X.2006.tb00105.x
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Agustín-Panadero R, Moreno DM, Pérez-Barquero JA, Fernández-Estevan L, Gómez-Polo M, Revilla-León M. Influence of Type of Restorative Materials and Surface Wetness conditions on Intraoral Scanning Accuracy. J Dent. 2023; 134:104521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104521
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ren X, Son K, Lee KB. Accuracy of Proximal and Occlusal Contacts of Single Implant Crowns Fabricated Using Different Digital Scan Methods: An In Vitro Study. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14:2843. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14112843
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Qian K, Li B, Pu T, Bai T, Liu Y. Fitness of Self-Glazed Zirconia Onlays Using Conventional and Digital Impressions. Adv Appl Ceram. 2022; 121:93–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/17436753.2022.2069988
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.midc.19
Loading
Evaluation of the internal fit of zirconia crowns supported by metal implant abutments using different scanning aid agents through 3D analysis
Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care 2024, 19 (2024); https://doi.org/10.5339/jemtac.2024.midc.19
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.midc.19
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.midc.19
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): CAD/CAM material, internal fit, intraoral scanner, liquid paint, powder spray, scan body and titanium base abutment

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error