Marginal discrepancy of lithium disilicate crowns made with digital and conventional technologies

Ellen Christine Rodrigues de Abreu; Thierry Silva Jacomo; Débora Serrano de Macedo; Willian Gomes Soares Costa; Roberto Chaib Stegun; William Cunha Brandt

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.031

Marginal discrepancy of lithium disilicate crowns made with digital and conventional technologies

J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Oct 30:S0022-3913(23)00646-7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.031. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Ellen Christine Rodrigues de Abreu¹, Thierry Silva Jacomo², Débora Serrano de Macedo³, Willian Gomes Soares Costa⁴, Roberto Chaib Stegun⁵, William Cunha Brandt⁶

Affiliations

¹ PhD student, Department of Implantology , School of Dentistry, University Santo Amaro (UNISA), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
² Professor, Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University Santo Amaro (UNISA), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
³ Professor, Department of Implantology, School of Dentistry, University Santo Amaro (UNISA), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
⁴ Post-graduate student, Department of Implantology, São Leopoldo Mandic Institute and Research Center (SLMANDIC), Campinas, SP, Brazil.
⁵ Full Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
⁶ Full professor, Department of Implantology, School of Dentistry, University Santo Amaro (UNISA), São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: williamcbrandt@yahoo.com.br.

PMID: 37914606
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.031

Abstract

Statement of problem: Digital technologies have brought different workflows to prosthetic rehabilitations, but analyses of the available processes and their influence on the marginal fit of complete crowns are lacking.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal discrepancy of lithium disilicate complete crowns made with different workflows.

Material and methods: Fifty lithium disilicate crowns were made with 5 different workflows (n=10): G1-Analog (control): conventional flow/pressed crown; G2-Hybrid: hybrid flow/milled crown; G3-Hybrid: hybrid flow/pressed crown; G4-Hybrid: hybrid flow/printed wax pattern/pressed crown; G5-Digital: digital flow/milled crown. The specimens were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy, and the data were analyzed for normality and submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple comparisons were made by using the Tukey HSD test (α=.05).

Results: G4H (18.1 ±6.6 µm) had the lowest mean ±standard deviation marginal discrepancy values, statistically different from G2H (217.9 ±81.4 µm), G5D (236.4 ±89 µm), and G3H (661.8 ±61.9 µm) (P<.05). G3H had the highest marginal discrepancy values and were statistically similar to each other (P>.05). G1A (163.2 ±10.9 µm) had intermediate values, statistically similar to those of other groups (P>.05).

Conclusions: The conventional method showed no statistical differences in marginal discrepancy compared with methods using digital technology (scanner, software, 3D printer, or milling machine).