The effect of different scanning systems on marginal and internal adaptation of indirect restorations | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Volume 69, Issue 3 - Serial Number 5, July 2023, Page 2273-2280 PDF (792.9 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2023.195798.2459 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Nasser Hussein Ali   1; Emad Abdelfatah Aboalazm 2
| ||||
| 1Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Modern University for Technology and Informations (MTI) | ||||
| 2Associate Professor, Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Modern University for Technology and Informations (MTI) University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: This study aimed to compare the efficacy, of 4 different intra-oral scanners and a conventional impression technique, to produce marginal and internal adaptation of indirect restorations. Materials and Method: A total of 25 lower right acrylic second molar models were selected for the preparation of standardized MOD inlay cavities. Prepared acrylic molar models were divided into 5 groups according to digital or conventional impression used: Group I: CEREC Primescan, Group II: Medit i700, Group III: Smart scan 3D version 2, Group IV: Aoralscan 3, Group V: Flexceed additional silicone impression. Inlay restorations were milled from E-max blocks. Inlays were cemented in corresponding cavities using self-adhesive resin cement (Panavia SA). The restored teeth models were cut in buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. Measurement of the gap at buccal, lingual, and pulpal tooth-restoration interfaces was performed using a stereo microscope. Image analysis software was used to assess internal adaptation. Results were obtained and statistically analyzed. Results: Group I had significantly the least average gap (39.17 ± 2.08 µm), followed by Group II (43.82 + 1.82 µm) which was insignificantly lower than Group V (46.92 + 2.77 µm). Group IV had a significantly wider gap (55.66 + 2.99 µm) than Group V, while Group III had a significantly wider gap (60.21 ± 1.66 µm) than all the other groups. Conclusion: Primescan is the most efficient system, flowed by both Medit i700 system and Flexceed additional silicone impression, while Smart scan 3D version 2 is the least accurate system followed by Aoralscan 3 system. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| intra-oral scanner; marginal gap; internal fit | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 227 PDF Download: 173 |
||||
