Can lithium disilicate ceramic crowns be fabricated on the basis of CBCT data?
- 11 Downloads
Evaluating the fit of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic crowns fabricated on basis of direct and indirect digitalization of impressions by CBCT or of dental casts.
Material and methods
A metal model with a molar chamfer preparation was digitized (n = 12 per group) in four ways: IOS—direct digitalization using an Intra-Oral scanner (CS3600), cone-beam computed tomography scan (CBCT 1)—indirect digitalization of impression (CBCT-CS9300), CBCT 2—indirect digitalization of impression (CBCT-CS8100), and Extra-Oral scanner (EOS)—indirect digitalization of gypsum-cast (CeramillMap400). Accuracy of 3D datasets was evaluated in relation to a reference dataset by best-fit superimposition. Marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns after grinding was evaluated by replica technique. Significant differences were detected for 3D accuracy by Mann–Whitney U and for fit of crowns by One-way ANOVA followed by Scheffe’s post hoc (p = 0.05).
3D analysis revealed mean positive and negative deviations for the groups IOS (− 0.011 ± 0.007 mm/0.010 ± 0.003 mm), CBCT 1 (− 0.046 ± 0.008 mm/0.093 ± 0.004 mm), CBCT 2 (− 0.049 ± 0.030 mm/0.072 ± 0.015 mm), and EOS (− 0.023 ± 0.007 mm/0.028 ± 0.007 mm). Marginal fit presented the results IOS (0.056 ± 0.022 mm), CBCT 1 (0.096 ± 0.034 mm), CBCT 2 (0.068 ± 0,026 mm), and EOS (0.051 ± 0.017 mm).
The marginal fit of EOS and IOS, IOS and CBCT 2, and CBCT 2 and CBCT 1 showed statistical differences. The marginal fit of CBCT 1 and CBCT 2 is within the range of clinical acceptance; however, it is significant inferior to EOS and IOS.
The use of a CBCT enables clinicians to digitize conventional impressions. Despite presenting results within clinical acceptable levels, the CBCT base method seems to be inferior to Intra-Oral scans or to scanning gypsum models regarding the resulting accuracy and fit.
KeywordsCone-beam computed tomography Digital impression Direct digitalization Fit Indirect restorations
The authors would like to thank CARESTREAM for the support of the study.
The first author was financial supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (grant, no. 290087/2014–7). This study was financially supported by CARESTREAM.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
For this type of study formal, consent is not required.
- 6.Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D (2015) Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent 114(4):554–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Sulaiman F, Chai J, Jameson LM, Wozniak WT (1997) A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont 10:478–484Google Scholar
- 15.Almeida e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araújo É, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, Güth JF (2014) Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 18(2):515–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0987-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16(1):11–21Google Scholar
- 22.Kim SR, Kim CM, Jeong ID, Kim WC, Kim HY, Kim JH (2017) Evaluation of accuracy and repeatability using CBCT and a dental scanner by means of 3D software. Int J Comput Dent 20(1):65–73Google Scholar
- 23.Robben J, Muallah J, Wesemann C, Nowak R, Mah J, Pospiech P, Bumann A (2017) Suitability and accuracy of CBCT model scan: an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 20(4):363–375Google Scholar
- 27.Güth JF, Kauling AEC, Schweiger J, Kühnisch J, Stimmelmayr M (2017) Virtual simulation of periodontal surgery including presurgical CAD/CAM fabrication of tooth-colored removable splints on the basis of CBCT data: a case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 37(6):e310–e320. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.2769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Flügge T, Derksen W, Te Poel J, Hassan B, Nelson K, Wismeijer D (2017) Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans—a prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(9):1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12925 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Huotilainen E, Jaanimets R, Valášek J, Marcián P, Salmi M, Tuomi J, Mäkitie A, Wolff J (2014) Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42(5):e259–e265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar