Accuracy of digital impressions, master casts, and final restorations achieved from five different digital impression systems
Date
2015
DOI
Authors
Ali, Ala Omar
Version
OA Version
Citation
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test: the accuracy of digital impressions, master models obtained from different digital and conventional impression systems, and the accuracy of marginal and internal adaptations of the final restoration fabricated using these systems.
Material and Methods: an epoxy model of a three unit bridge was designed to be used as reference model. Dental impressions (n=5) using different digital and conventional impression systems (CEREC, E4D, Lava C.O.S, 3Shape lab, iTero, and polyether) were made. Master models of these impressions were obtained according to the manufacturer recommendation. The accuracy of the impressions and the master models were evaluated by comparing them to the reference model using computer software. Final restorations were fabricated on the produced models and tested for marginal and internal adaption using weight and replica technique.
RESULTS: accuracy of the digital impressions ([mu]m) were as follow: 3Shape 44(18), CEREC 68(12), Lava 36(19), E4D 84(4), and iTero 23(3), one way ANOVA test was significant (P[less or equal to] 0.001). The accuracy of the master models ([mu]m) were as follow: 3Shape 67(20), CEREC 116(5), Lava 48(9), FAD l17(12), iTero 64(27), and Stone 31(5), one way ANOVA test was significant (P[less and equal] 0.001).Internal adaptations by weight ([mu]g) were as follow: 3Shape 792(92), CEREC 704(18), Lava 563(37), iTero 638(26), E4D 772(78), and Stone 650(42), one way ANOVA test was significant (P[less than] 0.001). The marginal gaps ([mu]m) were as follow: 3Shape 70(8), CEREC 80(2), iTero 86(4), Lava 69(9), Stone 95(6), and E4D 106(14), one way ANOVA test was significant (P[less than]0.001). The axial adaptations ([mu]m) were as follow: 3Shape 253(13), CEREC 249(15), E4D 287(29), Stone 222(13), Lava 195(23), and iTero 234(20), one way ANOVA test was significant (P[less than]0.001). The occlusall adaptations ([mu]m) were as follow: Lava 236(19), iTero 313(12), 3Shape 332(52), CEREC 314(25), E4D 392(32), and Stone 353 (52), one way ANOVA test was significant (P[less than]0.001). The correlations between marginal,internal, and occlusal adaptations were positive for all the comparisons.
Description
PLEASE NOTE: This work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community: please click Download and log in with a valid BU account to access. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact open-help@bu.edu.
Dissertation (DScD) --Boston University, Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, 2015 (Department of Operative Dentistry)
Includes bibliographic references: leaves 72-80.
Dissertation (DScD) --Boston University, Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, 2015 (Department of Operative Dentistry)
Includes bibliographic references: leaves 72-80.
License
This work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact open-help@bu.edu.