Evaluation of marginal adaptation in three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and powder-free digital impression techniques

Kocaagaoglu H., ALBAYRAK H., Sahin S. C., Gurbulak A. G.

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS, vol.11, no.5, pp.262-270, 2019 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 11 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2019
  • Doi Number: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.262
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.262-270
  • Keywords: Marginal misfit, Three-unit framework, Digital impression, Conventional impression, Computer-aided design/Computer-aided manufacturing, LITHIUM DISILICATE CROWNS, FIXED DENTAL PROSTHESES, IN-VITRO EVALUATION, INTERNAL FIT, CAD/CAM SYSTEMS, ZIRCONIA, DISCREPANCIES, CHAIRSIDE, COPINGS
  • Erciyes University Affiliated: Yes


PURPOSE. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal misfits three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and digital impressions techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty brass canine and second premolar abutment preparations were fabricated by using a computer numerical control machine and were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=10) as follows: conventional impression group (Group Ci), Cerec Omnicam (Group Cdi), and 3shape TRIOS-3 (Group Tdi) digital impression groups. The laser-sintered metal frameworks were designed and fabricated with conventional and digital impressions. The marginal adaptation was assessed with a stereomicroscope at x30 magnification. The data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and the independent simple t tests. RESULTS. A statistically significant difference was found between the frameworks fabricated by conventional methods and those fabricated by digital impression methods. Multiple comparison results revealed that the frameworks in Group Ci (average, 98.8 +/- 16.43 mu m; canine, 93.59 +/- 16.82 mu m; premolar, 104.10 +/- 15.02 mu m) had larger marginal misfit values than those in Group Cdi (average, 63.78 +/- 14.05 mu m; canine, 62.73 +/- 13.71 mu m; premolar, 64.84 +/- 15.06 mu m) and Group Tdi (average, 65.14 +/- 18.05 mu m; canine, 70.64 +/- 19.02 mu m; premolar, 59.64 +/- 16.10 mu m) (P=.000 for average; P=.001 for canine; P<.001 for premolar). No statistical difference was found between the marginal misfits of canine and premolar abutment teeth within the same groups (P>.05). CONCLUSION. The three-unit frameworks fabricated with digital impression techniques showed better marginal fit compared to conventional impression techniques. All marginal misfit values were clinically acceptable.