Premium
A clinical comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques regarding finish line locations and impression time
Author(s) -
Koulivand Soudabeh,
Ghodsi Safoura,
Siadat Hakimeh,
Alikhasi Marzieh
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/jerd.12527
Subject(s) - impression , dentistry , materials science , finish line , repeatability , orthodontics , mathematics , computer science , medicine , statistics , world wide web , biology , botany , race (biology)
Objective This study compared digital and conventional impression techniques regarding impression time, frequency of adjustments, and adaptation of cobalt‐chromium (Co‐Cr) copings with supragingival and subgingival finish lines. Materials and Methods Thirty premolars prepared for single‐unit metal‐ceramic restorations with supragingival and subgingival finish lines (n = 15). Conventional impression and digital scan of prepared teeth were made. Using computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system the copings were produced by a milling machine from Co‐Cr blocks and internal and marginal discrepancies were measured using silicone replica technique. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and Mann‐Whitney test (alpha = .05). Results The impression technique had a significant effect on the magnitude of gap ( P < .001). The internal and marginal gaps in the digital technique (49.43 μ and 60.07 μ, respectively) were significantly lower than the values in the conventional method (91.88 μ and 96.96 μ, respectively— P < .001). Finish line positions had no significant effect on the fit and marginal gap of copings ( P = .54 and .243, respectively). The mean impression time (19′:27″ in conventional technique and 10′:31″ in digital technique) was significantly shorter ( P < .001) and the mean frequency of adjustments (2.2 times for conventional and 1.3 times for digital technique) was significantly lower in the digital technique ( P < .001). The gingival biotype (thick or thin) had no significant effect on marginal and internal fit ( P = .052 and .319, respectively). Conclusion The digital technique was superior in terms of fit, impression time, and frequency of adjustments. Finish line positions had no significant effect on the fit of copings. Clinical Significance Using intraoral scanner promotes the fits of restorations in supragingival and subgingival finish lines.