Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, İncitaş Street, Emniyet District, Box 06560, Yenimahalle, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Odontology. 2021 Apr;109(2):440-447. doi: 10.1007/s10266-020-00560-6. Epub 2020 Oct 26.
The aim of this study was to compare the fit of feldspathic ceramic crowns fabricated via 3 different extraoral digitizing methods. Twelve maxillary first premolars were prepared and 36 single crowns were fabricated via 3 extraoral digitizing methods using a laboratory scanner (n = 12): (1) scanning the typodont (ST [control] group); (2) scanning the impression (SI group); (3) scanning the stone cast (SC group). Micro-computed tomography was used to calculate two-dimensional marginal-internal gap and the three-dimensional volumetric gap between the crowns and their corresponding dies. The measured gaps were divided into 6 location categories as follows: marginal gap (MG), finish line gap (FLG), axial wall gap (AWG), cuspal gap (CG), proximal transition gap (PTG), and central fossa gap (CFG). The correlation between each of the 3 extraoral digitizing methods and the adaptation status of the crown margins were also evaluated. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman's rank test, and Chi-square test were used for data analysis (α = 0.05). The marginal gaps in the ST, SI, and SC groups differed significantly (24, 198 and 117.6 µm, respectively) (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between the groups with regard to internal gap measurements, with SI representing higher gap measurements at FLG, PTG and CFG locations (p < 0.05). 3D volumetric gap measurements did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Under-extended margins observed in the SI and SC groups were correlated with the digitizing method (Cramer's V-square: 0.14). When performing extraoral digitalization, clinicians should choose to scan the stone cast as scanning the stone cast resulted in better internal and marginal fit compared to scanning the impression.
本研究旨在比较通过 3 种不同的口外数字化方法制作的长石质陶瓷冠的适合度。将 12 颗上颌第一前磨牙制备并通过 3 种口外数字化方法(实验室扫描仪)制作 36 个单冠(n=12):(1)扫描模型(ST[对照]组);(2)扫描印模(SI 组);(3)扫描石膏代型(SC 组)。微计算机断层扫描用于计算冠和相应代型之间的二维边缘-内部间隙和三维体积间隙。测量的间隙分为 6 个位置类别:边缘间隙(MG)、颈缘线间隙(FLG)、轴壁间隙(AWG)、牙尖间隙(CG)、近中过渡间隙(PTG)和中央窝间隙(CFG)。还评估了 3 种口外数字化方法中的每一种与冠边缘适合度之间的相关性。使用 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验、Spearman 秩检验和卡方检验进行数据分析(α=0.05)。ST、SI 和 SC 组的边缘间隙差异有统计学意义(分别为 24、198 和 117.6μm)(p<0.05)。在内部间隙测量方面,组间存在显著差异,SI 在 FLG、PTG 和 CFG 位置的间隙测量值更高(p<0.05)。3D 体积间隙测量值差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。在 SI 和 SC 组中观察到的边缘下延不足与数字化方法相关(Cramer's V 平方:0.14)。在进行口外数字化时,临床医生应选择扫描石膏代型,因为与扫描印模相比,扫描石膏代型可获得更好的内部和边缘适合度。