Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Feb 14;16(4):544.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph16040544.

Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns

Francesco Ferrini  1 , Gianpaolo Sannino  2 , Carlo Chiola  3 , Paolo Capparé  4 , Giorgio Gastaldi  5   6 , Enrico Felice Gherlone  7
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns

Francesco Ferrini et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the quality of digital workflows generated by different scanners (Intra-oral digital scanners (I.O.S.s)) focusing on marginal fit analysis. A customized chrome-cobalt (Cr-Co) implant abutment simulating a maxillary right first molar was fixed in hemi-maxillary stone model and scanned by eight different I.O.S.s: Omnicam® (Denstply Sirona, Verona, Italy) CS3500®, CS3600®, (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, GA, USA), True Definition Scanner® (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), DWIO® (Dental Wings, Montreal, Quebec, Canada), PlanScan® (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland), 3D PROGRESS Plus® (MHT, Verona, Italy), TRIOS 3® (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Nine scans were performed by each tested I.O.S. and 72 copings were designed using a dental computer-assisted-design/computer-assisted-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software (exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). According to CAD data, zirconium dioxide (ZrO₂) copings were digitally milled (Roland DWX-50, Irvine, CA, USA). Scanning electron microscope (SEM) direct vision allowed for marginal gap measurements in eight points for each specimen. Descriptive analysis was performed using mean, standard deviation, and median, while the Kruskal⁻Wallis test was performed to determine whether the marginal discrepancies were significantly different between each group (significance level p < 0.05). The overall mean marginal gap value and standard deviation were 53.45 ± 30.52 μm. The minimum mean value (40.04 ± 18.90 μm) was recorded by PlanScan®, then 3D PROGRESS Plus® (40.20 ± 21.91 μm), True Definition Scanner® (40.82 ± 26.19 μm), CS3500® (54.82 ± 28.86 μm) CS3600® (59,67 ± 28.72 μm), Omnicam® (61.57 ± 38.59 μm), DWIO® (62.49 ± 31.54 μm), while the maximum mean value (67.95 ± 30.41 μm) was recorded by TRIOS 3®. The Kruskal⁻Wallis tests revealed a statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.5) in the mean marginal gaps between copings produced by 3D PROGRESS Plus®, PlanScan, True Definition Scanner, and the other evaluated I.O.S.s. The use of an I.O.S. for digital impressions may be a viable alternative to analog techniques. Although in this in vitro study PlanScan®, 3D PROGRESS Plus® and True Definition Scanner® may have showed the best performances, all I.O.S.s tested could provide clinically encouraging results especially in terms of marginal accuracy, since mean marginal gap values were all within the clinically acceptable threshold of 120 μm.

Keywords: CAD/CAM; SEM; digital impression; marginal accuracy; scanner.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A customized Cr-Co implant abutment was manufactured according to the STL file generated by a 3D CAD modeling software, (a)3D CAD model; (b)Cr-Co milled abutment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The abutment was then mounted and fixed in hemi-maxillary stone model.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Scanned images were imported in Exocad CAD/CAM software and managed by a technician for core designing.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The finish line was automatically set by exocad software when clearly detectable, while in other cases manual adjustments were needed.
Figure 5
Figure 5
A total of 72 copings were milled according to test coping produced in order to evaluate the right fit.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Box-plot representing the sample distribution. Outlier values are indicated by “+” symbols.
Figure 7
Figure 7
The Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed a statistically significant difference (p-Value < 0.5) in the mean marginal gaps between copings produced by different I.O.S.s.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mormann W.H., Brandestini M., Lutz F. The Cerec system: Computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting. Quintessenz. 1987;38:457–470. - PubMed
    1. Christensen G.J. Impressions are changing: Deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2009;140:1301–1304. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mangano F., Gandolfi A., Luongo G., Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:149. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Imburgia M., Logozzo S., Hauschild U., Veronesi G., Mangano C., Mangano F.G. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:92. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stanley M., Paz A.G., Miguel I., Coachman C. Fully digital workflow, integrating dental scan, smile design and CAD-CAM: Case report. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18:134. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0597-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources