Comparison of an indirect impression scanning system and two direct intraoral scanning systems in vivo

  • Patricia Bosniac
  • Peter Rehmann
  • Bernd WöstmannEmail author
Original Article



This in vivo study aimed to compare the marginal discrepancies of zirconia copings manufactured on the basis of two direct intraoral scanning systems and the indirect digitization of a conventional impression.

Materials and methods

A total of 63 teeth in 23 patients were prepared to receive full-coverage crowns. Subsequently, these teeth were intraorally scanned using CEREC AC Omnicam and Cara TRIOS and a conventional impression was taken with the scannable PVS Flexitime Fast & Scan. The conventional impression was then extraorally digitized using a D700 laboratory scanner. The zirconia copings were manufactured on the basis of the resulting datasets. Silicone replicas of the copings were produced and sectioned for the measurement of the marginal discrepancy under a digital microscope.


The statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the two intraoral scanners, the CEREC AC Omnicam (86.09 μm ± 61.46 μm) and the Cara TRIOS (88.95 μm ± 54.46 μm). However, the discrepancies of the zirconia copings obtained from the laboratory scans of conventional impressions (143.29 μm ± 100.71 μm) showed significant differences. Both intraoral scanners achieved a marginal discrepancy below 100 μm, whereas the laboratory scan exhibited considerably higher values.


The intraoral scanners tested allow for the production of single-tooth-restorations with an adequate marginal fit, whereas the production of restorations on the basis of the scan of a conventional impression led to vast marginal gaps.

Clinical relevance

The method of digitizing a conventional impression using a laboratory scanner seemed to have reached its limits in the clinical environment.


Impression scan Intraoral scanner Digital impression Marginal discrepancy 



The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Johannes Herrmann of Giessen, Germany, for his statistical advice.


The work was supported by the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry of the Justus Liebig University, Gießen, Germany.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standard.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Fasbinder DJ (2013) Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent 26:115–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gardner FM (1982) Margins of complete crowns--literature review. J Prosthet Dent 48:396–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobs MS, Windeler AS (1991) An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent 65:436–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramfjord SP (1974) Periodontal aspects of restorative dentistry. J Oral Rehabil 1:107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sorensen SE, Larsen IB, Jorgensen KD (1986) Gingival and alveolar bone reaction to marginal fit of subgingival crown margins. Scand J Dent Res 94:109–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walton JN, Gardner FM, Agar JR (1986) A survey of crown and fixed partial denture failures: length of service and reasons for replacement. J Prosthet Dent 56:416–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldman M, Laosonthorn P, White RR (1992) Microleakage-full crowns and the dental pulp. J Endod 18:473–475. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McLean JW and von Fraunhofer JA (1971) The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 131:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dreyer Jorgensen K (1956) Prüfergebnisse zahnärztlicher Gußverfahren. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 13:461–468Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Contrepois M, Soenen A, Bartala M, Laviole O (2013) Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 110:447–454. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Takahashi H, Finger WJ (1994) Effects of the setting stage on the accuracy of double-mix impressions made with addition-curing silicone. J Prosthet Dent 72:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrie CS, Walker MP, O'Mahony AM, Spencer P (2003) Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions. J Prosthet Dent 90:365–372. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luthardt RG, Koch R, Rudolph H, Walter MH (2006) Qualitative computer aided evaluation of dental impressions in vivo. Dent Mater 22:69–76. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB (2008) Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend Contin Educ Dent 29 494(496):498–505Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P (2015) Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 20:291–300. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S (2013) The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow--the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig 17:2119–2125. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradies G (2016) Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig 20:2403–2410. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G (2015) Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 20:799–806. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Persson AS, Oden A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G (2009) Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 25:929–936. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jeon JH, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC (2014) Accuracy of 3D white light scanning of abutment teeth impressions: evaluation of trueness and precision. J Adv Prosthodont 6:468–473. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee WS, Kim WC, Kim HY, Kim WT, Kim JH (2014) Evaluation of different approaches for using a laser scanner in digitization of dental impressions. J Adv Prosthodont 6:22–29. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R (2017) An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont 26:581–586. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Podhorsky A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2015) Tooth preparation for full-coverage restorations-a literature review. Clin Oral Investig 19:959–968. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2015) Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 19:2027–2034. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    An S, Kim S, Choi H, Lee JH, Moon HS (2014) Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner. J Prosthet Dent 112:1171–1175. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C (2014) A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 112:555–560. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD (1989) Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 62:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reich S, Uhlen S, Gozdowski S, Lohbauer U (2011) Measurement of cement thickness under lithium disilicate crowns using an impression material technique. Clin Oral Investig 15:521–526. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Laurent M, Scheer P, Dejou J, Laborde G (2008) Clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of cast crowns-validation of the silicone replica method. J Oral Rehabil 35:116–122. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rahmé HY, Tehini GE, Adib SM, Ardo AS, Rifai KT (2008) In vitro evaluation of the "replica technique" in the measurement of the fit of Procera crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 9:25–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kastner K, Walter MH (2000) Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 84:419–424. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Syrek A et al (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38:553–559. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim KB, Kim JH, Kim WC, Kim HY, Kim JH (2013) Evaluation of the marginal and internal gap of metal-ceramic crown fabricated with a selective laser sintering technology: two- and three-dimensional replica techniques. J Adv Prosthodont 5:179–186. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wöstmann B, Blosser T, Gouentenoudis M, Balkenhol M, Ferger P (2005) Influence of margin design on the fit of high-precious alloy restorations in patients. J Dent 33:611–618. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kühmstedt P and Hintersehr J (2008) Optische 3D-Messtechnik im Dentalbereich digital_dental news 9:40–45Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hollenbeck K, Attin T and Van der Poel M (2012) Dental lab 3D scanners - how they work and what works best. 3Shape technology research, Copenhagen. Accessed Acces date 2015

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ProthodonticsJustus-Liebig-UniversityGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations