Analysis of The Reproducibility of Subgingival Vertical Margins Using Intraoral Optical Scanning (IOS): A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.
IOS
digital impression
knife-edge preparation
subgingival margins
superimposition
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2021
01 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
04
02
2021
revised:
21
02
2021
accepted:
22
02
2021
entrez:
3
4
2021
pubmed:
4
4
2021
medline:
4
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the capability of an IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) device, used in standardized conditions, to detect margins of abutments prepared with knife-edge finishing line located at three different levels in relation to the gingival sulcus. sixty abutment teeth for treatment with full crowns were selected and randomly divided in three groups accordingly to the depth of the finishing line: Group A: supragingival margin; Group B: 0.5-1.0 mm into the sulcus; Group C: 1.5-2.0 mm into the sulcus. Temporary crowns were placed for two weeks and then digital impressions (Aadva IOS 100, GC, Japan) were made of each abutment. As controls, analog impressions were taken, poured, and scanned using a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Japan). Two standard tessellation language (STL) files were generated for each abutment, subsequently processed, and superimposed by Exocad software (Exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany), applying the "best-fit" algorithm in order to align the scan of the conventional with the digital impressions. The distances between each preparation margin and the adjacent gingival tissue were measured. Four measures were taken, two interproximally and buccally, for a total of six measures of each abutment considering three modes of impressions. The data were statistically evaluated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each site and the Bonferroni test. there was no difference between the two kinds of impression in Group A in both sites, in Group B a difference of 0.483 mm and 0.682 mm at interproximal and buccal sites, respectively, and in Group C 0.750 mm and 0.964 mm at interproximal and buccal sites, respectively. The analysis performed on a site level (mesial/distal/vestibular) for the depth of both vertical preparations revealed significant differences ( the results showed that the location of the margin is an important factor in making a precise and complete impression when IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) is used. Moreover, deep preparation into the sulcus is not recommended for IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) impressions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the capability of an IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) device, used in standardized conditions, to detect margins of abutments prepared with knife-edge finishing line located at three different levels in relation to the gingival sulcus.
METHODS
METHODS
sixty abutment teeth for treatment with full crowns were selected and randomly divided in three groups accordingly to the depth of the finishing line: Group A: supragingival margin; Group B: 0.5-1.0 mm into the sulcus; Group C: 1.5-2.0 mm into the sulcus. Temporary crowns were placed for two weeks and then digital impressions (Aadva IOS 100, GC, Japan) were made of each abutment. As controls, analog impressions were taken, poured, and scanned using a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Japan). Two standard tessellation language (STL) files were generated for each abutment, subsequently processed, and superimposed by Exocad software (Exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany), applying the "best-fit" algorithm in order to align the scan of the conventional with the digital impressions. The distances between each preparation margin and the adjacent gingival tissue were measured. Four measures were taken, two interproximally and buccally, for a total of six measures of each abutment considering three modes of impressions. The data were statistically evaluated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each site and the Bonferroni test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
there was no difference between the two kinds of impression in Group A in both sites, in Group B a difference of 0.483 mm and 0.682 mm at interproximal and buccal sites, respectively, and in Group C 0.750 mm and 0.964 mm at interproximal and buccal sites, respectively. The analysis performed on a site level (mesial/distal/vestibular) for the depth of both vertical preparations revealed significant differences (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
the results showed that the location of the margin is an important factor in making a precise and complete impression when IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) is used. Moreover, deep preparation into the sulcus is not recommended for IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) impressions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33804358
pii: jcm10050941
doi: 10.3390/jcm10050941
pmc: PMC7957624
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Apr;123(4):580-583
pubmed: 31375275
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Aug;118(2):200-207
pubmed: 28089331
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Aug;15(4):466-73
pubmed: 15248882
J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Nov;41(11):853-74
pubmed: 24952991
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020 Jan-Mar;20(1):27-37
pubmed: 32089596
Br Dent J. 1971 Aug 3;131(3):107-11
pubmed: 5283545
J Prosthet Dent. 1985 Apr;53(4):484-90
pubmed: 3889281
J Periodontol. 1979 Sep;50(9):462-6
pubmed: 114618
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Apr;113(4):310-5
pubmed: 25682531
J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Apr;85(4):363-76
pubmed: 11319534
J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Jan;65(1):75-9
pubmed: 2033551
J Prosthet Dent. 1982 Oct;48(4):396-400
pubmed: 6752383
J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 09;9(7):
pubmed: 32660070
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Dec;110(6):447-454.e10
pubmed: 24120071
J Oral Rehabil. 1992 May;19(3):239-43
pubmed: 1500967
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Nov;90(5):459-64
pubmed: 14586310
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Dec;124(6):761.e1-761.e7
pubmed: 33289647
J Dent Res. 1987 Aug;66(8):1341-5
pubmed: 3305635
J Dent Technol. 2001 Jun;18(4):23-5
pubmed: 11933718
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018 Aug 30;26(3):101-121
pubmed: 29989757
Int J Prosthodont. 2017 Jul/Aug;30(4):373-376
pubmed: 28697209
Northwest Dent. 2012 Jan-Feb;91(1):22-9
pubmed: 22439529
Am J Dent. 2018 Oct;31(5):272-276
pubmed: 30346675
J Dent Biomater. 2016 Jun;3(2):205-213
pubmed: 28959744
J Prosthodont Res. 2020 Apr;64(2):109-113
pubmed: 31474576
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Apr;119(4):545-551
pubmed: 28967399
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 May;17(4):1201-8
pubmed: 22847854