head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2023, vol. 29, issue4
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2023294.5265
Published online: 12 December 2023

Original article
J of IMAB. 2023 Oct-Dec;29(4):5265-5271
Viktoria PetrovaORCID logoCorresponding Autoremail, Radosveta VasilevaORCID logo, Janet KirilovaORCID logo,
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.

Purpose: Indirect restorations can be performed using different impression techniques (conventional, laboratory, or intraoral scanners). Their accuracy determined their longevity. This study compares the marginal and internal adaptation of milled CAD/CAM composite inlays fabricated by conventional,  hybrid, and digital methods.
Material and methods: Thirty human premolars were prepared for MOD composite inlays(CI). They were divided into three equal groups depending on the process of fabrication: Group 1 (conventional group)— impression and laboratory-fabricated CI, Group 2 (hybrid group)— impression, laboratory scanner and milled CAD/CAM CI, and Group 3(digital group)— digital impression (intraoral scanner) and milled CAD/CAM CI. The marginal gap (MG), absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD), and internal gap (IG) were measured at 120 different points per CI using X‐ray microtomography. The data were analyzed using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Mann–Whitney U tests.
Results: The conventional and digital composite inlays present significantly smaller marginal and internal gaps than the CAD/CAM group manufactured by hybrid methods.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, we concluded that the CAD-CAM composite inlays fabricated by digital method exhibited statistically better marginal and internal adaptation results than composite CAD-CAM inlays by hybrid methods. The composite CAD-CAM inlays made by digital methods are an alternative to those made by a conventional methodology.

Keywords: inlays, CAD/CAM dental materials, in vitro micro-CT, marginal adaptation, internal adaptation, digital dentistry,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 1101 KB/
Please cite this article as: Petrova V, Vasileva R, Kirilova J. Adaptation of composite CAD/CAM inlays fabricated by different methods: an in vitro micro-CT study. J of IMAB. 2023 Oct-Dec;29(4):5265-5271. [Crossref - 10.5272/jimab.2023294.5265]

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Viktoria Petrova, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia; 1, Georgi Sofiiski Str., Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: viktoriapetrova@abv.bg

1. Rocca GT, Rizcalla N, Krejci I, Dietschi D. Evidence-based concepts and procedures for bonded inlays and onlays. Part II. Guidelines for cavity preparation and restoration fabrication. Int J Esthet Dent. 2015 Autumn;10(3):392-413. [PubMed]
2. Petraki V, Antoniadou М,  Koinaris  A,  Sakellaropoulos  O,  Aivaliotis  S. Resin composite onlays. A restorative solution with perspective. Clinical and laboratory procedures. Hellenic Stomatological Review. 2013; 57: 195-218.
3. Ciocan LT, Ghitman  J, Vasilescu VG,  Iovu  H. Mechanical Properties of Polymer-Based Blanks for Machined Dental Restorations. Materials (Basel). 2021 Nov 29;14(23):7293. [PubMed]
4. Ibrahim SH, Amr H, Hassan AA, Elzohairy A. Internal fit evaluation of indirect restorations fabricated from CAD/CAM composite blocks versus ceramic blocks in badly broken teeth using cone beam CT (CBCT): double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Heliyon. 2022 May 19;8(5):e09466. [PubMed]
5. Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Post-cure heat treatments for composites: properties and fractography. Dent Mater. 1992 Sep;8(5):290-5. [PubMed]
6. Alajaji NK, Bardwell D, Finkelman M, Ali A. Micro-CT Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays: Comparison of the Marginal and Internal Fit of Five and Three Axis CAM Systems with a Heat Press Technique. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017 Feb;29(1):49-58. [PubMed]
7. Lauvahutanon, S, Takahashi H, Shiozawa M, Iwasaki N, Asakawa Y, Oki M, et al. Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J. 2014; 33(5):705-10. [PubMed]
8. Măroiu AC, Sinescu C, Duma VF, Topală F, Jivănescu A, Popovici PM, et al. Micro-CT and Microscopy Study of Internal and Marginal Gap to Tooth Surface of Crenelated versus Conventional Dental Indirect Veneers. Medicina(Kaunas). 2021 Jul 29;57(8):772. [PubMed]
9. Reich S, Gozdowski S, Trentzsch  L, Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U. Marginal fit of heat-pressed vs. CAD/CAM processed all-ceramic onlays using a milling unit prototype. Oper Dent. 2008 Nov-Dec;33(6):644-50. [PubMed]
10. Addi S, Hedayati-Khams A, Poya A, Sjogren G. Interface gap size of manually and CAD/CAM-manufactured ceramic inlays/onlays in vitro. J Dent. 2002 Jan;30(1):53-8. [PubMed]
11. Schaefer O, Kuepper H, Sigusch BW, Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U. Three-dimensional fit of lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro. J Dent. 2013 Mar;41(3):271-7. [PubMed]
12. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Oct;62(4):405-8. [PubMed]
13. Soares CJ, Martins LR, Fonseca RB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Fernandes Neto AJ. Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior Leucite-reinforced ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2006 Jun;95(6):421-9. [PubMed]
14. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):555-60. [PubMed]
15. Pradнes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martнnez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent. 2015 Feb;43(2):201-8. [PubMed]
16. Park SH, Yoo YJ, Shin YJ, Cho BH, Baek SH. Marginal and internal fit of nano-composite CAD/CAM restorations. Restor Dent Endod. 2016 Feb;41(1):37-43. [PubMed]
17. Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jun;21(5):1445-1455 [PubMed]
18. Chang S, Peng Y, Hung L, Hsu L. Evaluation of marginal adaptation of Co-Cr-Mo metal crowns fabricated by traditional method and computer-aided technologies. J Dent Sci. 2019 Sep;14(3):288-294. [PubMed]
19. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression-a split-mouth randomized clinical study. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Nov;23(11):4043-4050. [PubMed]
20. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 May;20(4):799-806. [PubMed]
21. Ahrberg D, Lauer H, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Mar;20(2):291-300. [PubMed]
22. Gьth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 May;17(4):1201-8. [PubMed]
23. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Nov;41(11):853-74. [PubMed]
24. Dauti R, Cvikl B, Franz A, Schwarze UY, Lilaj B, Rybaczek T, et al. Comparison of marginal fit of cemented zirconia copings manufactured after digital impression with lava™ COS and conventional impression technique. BMC Oral Health. 2016 Dec 8;16(1):129. [PubMed]
25. Demir N, Ozturk AN, Malkoc MA. Evaluation of the marginal fit of full ceramic crowns by the microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) technique. Eur J Dent. 2014 Oct;8(4):437-44. [PubMed]
26. Gonzalo E, Suarez MJ, Serrano B, Lozano JF. A comparison of the marginal vertical discrepancies of zirconium and metal ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses before and after cementation. J Prosthet Dent. 2009 Dec;102(6):378-84. [PubMed]
27. Kim J, Cho B, Lee J, Kwon S, Yi Y, Shin Y, et al. Influence of preparation design on fit and ceramic thickness of CEREC 3 partial ceramic crowns after cementation. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015 Feb;73(2):107-13. [PubMed]
28. Baldi A, Comba A, Vergano EA, Vakalis ML, Alovisi M, Pasqualini D, et al. Digital Procedures Compared to Conventional Gypsum Casts in the Manufacturing of CAD/CAM Adhesive Restorations: 3D Surface Trueness and Interfacial Adaptation Analysis. Appl Sci. 2021 May 30;11(11):5060. [Crossref]
29. Ashy LM, Marghalani H. Internal and Marginal Adaptation of Adhesive Resin Cements Used for Luting Inlay Restorations: An In Vitro Micro-CT Study. Materials (Basel). 2022 Sep 5;15(17):6161. [PubMed]
30. Rizonaki M, Jacquet W, Bottenberg P, Depla L, Boone M, De Coster PJ. Evaluation of marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate CAD-CAM crowns with different finish lines by using a micro-CT technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Jun;127(6):890-898. [PubMed]
31. Schonberger J, Erdelt KJ, Baumer D, Beuer F. Evaluation of Two Protocols to Measure the Accuracy of Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study. J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):e599-e603. [PubMed]

Received: 26 April 2023
Published online: 12 December 2023

back to Online Journal