 |
| Title |
No Differences Were Found in the Clinical Marginal Fit of Zirconia Crowns Fabricated from Intraoral Digital Scanners or Polyvinyl Siloxane Impressions |
| Clinical Question |
For patients receiving a crown, is there a difference in the marginal fit between using an intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) material? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
For patients receiving a crown, there is no noticeable difference in marginal fit between using an intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. This conclusion is based on only a single trial of 16 patients. |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 28222872 | Sakornwimon/2017 | 16 participants with indications for single molar crowns | Randomized controlled trial | | Key results | There was no significant difference found in marginal discrepancies between the PVS group and the digital impression group on buccal, lingual, and interproximal sides. After crown preparation, PVS and digital intraoral impressions were made of each tooth. Then CAD/CAM crowns were made from both PVS and digital impressions and then evaluated intraorally. Finally, a blinded examiner measured the marginal discrepancy of silicone replicas under a stereomicroscope. | |
| Evidence Search |
(((marginal fit) AND crown) AND digital scanner) AND polyvinyl siloxane |
Comments on
The Evidence |
Validity: This study was a randomized controlled trial. Each patient received both digital impression and PVS impressions. The patients and the dentists who took the impressions were not blinded. A blinded examiner measured the marginal discrepancy of silicone replicas using a stereomicroscope. I did not discover any competing interests for the researchers.
Perspective: This is one of few studies to show that marginal fit of crowns is similar between intraoral digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. Most of the other articles I have personally seen have said that conventional impression-taking procedures are comparatively better in terms of internal and marginal fit, so this article did stand out to me. However, these unique results could be due to the improvement of digital intraoral scanners. Further research will need to be done to fully determine the benefits or drawbacks of digital intraoral scanners in terms of fit of the crown. However, if more data shows that digital intraoral scanning consistently produces similar results in terms of marginal fit, I believe that digital intraoral scanning would be a better choice due to increased patient comfort. |
| Applicability |
The subjects of this study are representative of patients seen in general dentistry practices. Treatment may or may not be feasible using digital intraoral scanners due to the high cost of the necessary equipment. Patients show greater satisfaction with digital intraoral scanners, and the literature supports that the fit of the crowns is acceptable. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Prosthodontics) |
| Keywords |
digital impressions, conventional impressions, single crown, marginal fit
|
| ID# |
3179 |
| Date of submission: |
03/31/2017 |
| E-mail |
reddys5@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Sidharth Reddy |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Diane Sullivan, DDS |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
sullivanD@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
| None available | |
|
|
