Comparison of the Marginal fit of E-max CAD Endocrown Restorations Conducted by using intraoral and extraoral scanners (In Vitro Study) | ||||
| MSA Dental Journal | ||||
| Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2025, Page 9-17 PDF (577.36 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/msadj.2024.337777.1047 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
HAYAT HANY ABDELREHIM  1; Aya A. Salama 2; Rabab Mohammed Ibrahim3
| ||||
| 1Master degree in restorative and esthetic dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, October University of Modern Sciences and Arts | ||||
| 2Lecturer, Fixed Prosthodontics Department, MSA university | ||||
| 3Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Marginal adaptation is one of the detrimental factors for the success and survival of dental restorations including endocrowns, impression material and technique may affect the fitting of the final restoration. Therefore, this in vitro study was conducted to assess the marginal adaptation of endocrown restorations restoring endodontically treated molars fabricated by intraoral and extraoral scanner. Materials and Methods: Thirty-two lower first molars were endodontically treated, prepared to receive endocrowns in a standardized way, they equally divided into 2 groups (n=16) according to the impression technique; direct scanning using intraoral scanner (IOS) (omnicam AF), digitalization of conventional impression by extraoral scanner (EOS) (INEOS X5). Endocrown restorations were designed using InLab CAD SW and milled from E-max CAD blocks using 5 axis milling machine. Cementation was done using dual cured self-adhesive cement. After 1-week the samples were subjected to 10,000 cycles of thermocycling. With an isomet, samples were sectioned buccolingually. Marginal adaptation was assessed using stereomicroscope under X20. The data was collected and statically analyzed. Results: No significant difference was found between IOS (61.2μm) and EOS (60.39μm) in terms of marginal gap distances. Conclusion: Both impression techniques exhibited marginal gap readings within clinically acceptable criteria. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Keywords: CAD/CAM; Endocrown; Extraoral scanner; Intraoral scanner; marginal fit | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 115 PDF Download: 87 |
||||
