Evaluation of the effect of endocrown tooth preparation depth and cavity wall angulation on intraoral scanner accuracy: An in vitro study

Year 2024, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 146 - 152, 31.12.2024

Bahadır Ezmek

https://doi.org/10.21306/dishekimligi.1535409

Abstract

Objective. This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of an intraoral scanner (IOS) on endocrown preparations with different cavity depths (CD) and cavity wall angulations (CWA).
Methods. Endocrown preparations with 2, 3, and 4mm CD and 80, 100, and 120 CWA were digitally designed. Nine digital models were produced using an stereolithography 3D printer (Form3B) with model resin (Model V3). An industrial scanner (ATOS) was used as the reference scanner. 10 scans for each model were performed using an IOS (Trios-4). Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files were superimposed on the reference STLs and 3D comparision was performed using 3D analysis software (Geomagic Control X). All data were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (α=.05).
Results. Higher deviations were noted in endocrown preparations with 4 mm CD (30.43± 3.18 µm) than in endocrown preparations with 3 mm CD (27.47± 3.15 µm) and 2 mm CD (23.57± 1.27 µm) (p<.001). In addition, endocrown preparations with a CWA of 80 (28.4± 4.6 µm) had more distortion than endocrown preparations with a CWA of 100 (26.64± 3.37 µm) (p=.021) and 120 (26.43± 3.35 µm) (p=.008). CD (p<.001) and CD-CWA interaction (p=.001) were found to affect the precision of IOS. CWA alone had no effect on the precision of IOS (p=.862).
Conclusion. A deep pulpal chamber extension with steeper CWA could adversely affect scan accuracy.

Keywords

Endocrown, Intreoral scanner, Scan accuracy, Cavity depth

Ethical Statement

In this in-vitro study, ethics committee approval was not required as the experiments were not performed in patients.

Endokron diş preparasyon derinliğinin ve kavite duvarı açılanmasının intraoral tarayıcı doğruluğu üzerindeki etkisinin değerlendirilmesi: İn vitro çalışma

Abstract

Amaç Bu in-vitro çalışmada, farklı kavite derinliklerine (KD) ve kavite duvarı açılanmalarına (KDA) sahip endokron diş preparasyonlarının ağız içi tarayıcının doğruluğu üzerindeki etkisi değerlendirildi.
Gereç ve Yöntemler 2, 3 ve 4 mm KD ve 80, 100 ve 120 KDA sahip EDP’ler dijital olarak tasarlandı. Dokuz Dijital tasarım stereolitografi 3D yazıcıya (Form3B) aktarıldı ve model reçine (Model V3) kullanılarak modeller üretildi. Referans veriler, modellerin endüstriyel tarayıcı da (ATOS) taranması ile elde edildi. Her bir model ağız içi tarayıcı (Trios-4) ile 10 kere tarandı. Tarama dosyaları 3 boyutlu analiz yazılımı (Geomagic Control X) kullanılarak referans dosyaları ile çakıştırıldı ve 3 boyutlu karşılaştırma yapıldı. Tüm veriler 2 yönlü ANOVA ve Tukey HSD testleri ile analiz edildi (α= .05).
Bulgular 4 mm KD’ye sahip endokronlardaki sapmanın (30,43± 3,18 µm); 3 mm KD’ye (27,47± 3,15 µm) ve 2 mm KD’ye (23,57± 1,27 µm) sahip endokronlardan istatistiksel olarak daha fazla olduğu görüldü (p<.001). Ayrıca, 80 KDA’ya sahip endokronlarda (28,4± 4,6 µm) 100 (26,64± 3,37 µm) (p=.021) ve 120 KDA’ya (26,43± 3,35 µm) (p=.008) sahip endokronlara göre daha fazla sapma belirlendi. KD (p<.001) ve KD-KDA ilişkisinin (p= 0.001); ağız içi tarayıcı hassasiyetini etkilediği belirlendi. KDA’nın tek başına ağız içi tarayıcının hassasiyeti üzerinde etkisi olmadığı görüldü (p= 0.862).
SONUÇ. Daha düşük KDA ile daha yüksek KD’ler ağız içi tarayıcıların doğruluğunu olumsuz etkileyebilir.

Keywords

Endokron, Ağıziçi tarayıcı, Tarama doğrululğu, Kavite derinliği, Kavite duvar açılanması

Ethical Statement

Bu in-vitro çalışmada deneyler hastalarda yapılmadığı için etik komite onayına gerek duyulmamıştır.

References

• 1. Pereira JR, Lins Do Valle A, Shiratori FK, Ghizoni JS, Bonfante EA. The effect of post material on the characteristic strength of fatigued endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(5):1225-30.
• 2. Zhou L, Wang Q. Comparison of fracture resistance between cast posts and fiber posts: A meta-analysis of literature. J Endod. 2013;39(1):11-15.
• 3. Figueiredo FED, Martins-Filho PRS, Faria-E-Silva AL. Do metal post-retained restorations result in more root fractures than fiber post-retained restorations? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2015;41(3):309-16.
• 4. Mattos CMA, Las Casas EB, Dutra IGR, Sousa HA, Guerra SMG. Numerical analysis of the biomechanical behaviour of a weakened root after adhesive reconstruction and post-core rehabilitation. J Dent. 2012;40(5):423-32.
• 5. Pissis P. Fabrication of a metal-free ceramic restoration utilizing the monobloc technique. Pr Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995;7(5):83-94.
• 6. Zhu J, Wang D, Rong Q, Qian J, Wang X. Effect of central retainer shape and abduction angle during preparation of teeth on dentin and cement layer stress distributions in endocrown-restored mandibular molars. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(3):464-70.
• 7. Pedrollo Lise D, Van Ende A, De Munck J, Umeda Suzuki TY, Cardoso Vieira LC, Van Meerbeek B. Biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated premolars using different preparation designs and CAD/CAM materials. J Dent. 2017;59:54-61.
• 8. Haralur SB, Alamri AA, Alshehri SA, Alzahrani DS, Alfarsi M. Influence of occlusal thickness and radicular extension on the fracture resistance of premolar endocrowns from different all-ceramic materials. Appl Sci. 2020;10(8):2696.
• 9.Tribst JPM, Giudice R Lo, Dos Santos AFC, Borges ALS, Silva-Concílio LR, Amaral M, et al. Lithium disilicate ceramic endocrown biomechanical response according to different pulp chamber extension angles and filling materials. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(5):1307.
• 10. Dartora NR, de Conto Ferreira MB, Moris ICM, Brazão EH, Spazin AO, Sousa-Neto MD, et al. Effect of Intracoronal Depth of Teeth Restored with Endocrowns on Fracture Resistance: In Vitro and 3-dimensional Finite Element Analysis. J Endod. 2018;44(7):1179-85.
• 11. Aktas G, Yerlikaya H, Akca K. Mechanical Failure of Endocrowns Manufactured with Different Ceramic Materials: An In Vitro Biomechanical Study. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(4):340-46.
• 12. Hayes AJ, DuVall N, Wajdowicz M, Roberts H. Effect of Endocrown Pulp Chamber Extension Depth on Molar Fracture Resistance. Oper Dent. 2017;42(3):327-34.
• 13. Park JM, Kim RJY, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):113-20.
• 14. Jin-Young Kim R, Benic GI, Park JM. Trueness of intraoral scanners in digitizing specific locations at the margin and intaglio surfaces of intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(6):779-86.
• 15. Zimmermann M, Ender A, Mehl A. Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020;151(2):127-35.
• 16. Nulty AB. A Comparison of Full Arch Trueness and Precision of Nine Intra-Oral Digital Scanners and Four Lab Digital Scanners. Dent J. 2021;9:75.
• 17. Patzelt SBM, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687-94.
• 18. Gurpinar B, Tak O. Effect of pulp chamber depth on the accuracy of endocrown scans made with different intraoral scanners versus an industrial scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(3):430-37.
• 19. Kurz M, Attin T, Mehl A. Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system. Zurich Open Repos Arch. 2015;19(8):2035-43.
• 20. Kim MK, Kim JM, Lee YM, Lim YJ, Lee SP. The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners used in dentistry. Clin Anat. 2019;32(3):430-38.
• 21. Govare N, Contrepois M. Endocrowns: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(3):411-18.
• 22. Arakida T, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Suzuki T. Evaluating the in fl uence of ambient light on scanning trueness , precision , and time of intra oral scanner. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(3):324-29.
• 23. Shin HS, Lee JS. Comparison of surface topography and roughness in different yttrium oxide compositions of dental zirconia after grinding and polishing. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021;13(4):258-67.
• 24. Park JM, Kim RJY, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):113-20.
• 25. Shin Y, Park S, Park JW, Kim KM, Park YB, Roh BD. Evaluation of the marginal and internal discrepancies of CAD-CAM endocrowns with different cavity depths: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(1):109-15.
• 26. Gaintantzopoulou MD, El-Damanhoury HM. Effect of preparation depth on the marginal and internal adaptation of computer-Aided design/computerassisted manufacture endocrowns. Oper Dent. 2016;41(6):607-16.
• 27. Tha D, Spintzyk S, Schille C, Sabet A, Wahsh M, Salah T, et al. Fracture resistance and failure modes of polymer infiltrated ceramic endocrown restorations with variations in margin design and occlusal thickness. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(3):293-97.
• 28. Emir F, Ayyıldız S. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of eight extraoral laboratory scanners with a complete-arch model: a three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(4):434-39.
• 29. Passos L, Meiga S, Brigagao V, Street A. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study. J Comput Dent. 2019;22(4):307-39.
• 30. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971;131:107-11.