World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of the Marginal Adaptation of Emax Ceramic Inlays Fabricated Using Traditional Rubber Base and Digital Impression Technique in Permanent Premolar: An In Vitro Study

Simran Gupta, Chetana Makade, Pratima Shenoi, Rajesh Kubde, Prajakta Ambulkar, Aditi Dhanvijay

Keywords : Digital impression technique, Emax inlay, Stereomicroscopy, Traditional impression technique

Citation Information : Gupta S, Makade C, Shenoi P, Kubde R, Ambulkar P, Dhanvijay A. Comparative Evaluation of the Marginal Adaptation of Emax Ceramic Inlays Fabricated Using Traditional Rubber Base and Digital Impression Technique in Permanent Premolar: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2024; 15 (3):240-243.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2392

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation of Emax ceramic inlays fabricated using traditional elastomeric impression technique and the digital impression technique in permanent premolars. Materials and methods: Standardized Class II inlay cavity of dimension 3 × 2.5 × 1.5 mm3 for ceramic inlay was prepared on the mesial surface of 14 freshly extracted human permanent premolar teeth due to orthodontic considerations. The teeth were randomly allocated into two groups, each with seven teeth. In Group I, the inlay cavity was recorded using the traditional elastomeric impression (TEI) technique, whereas in Group II, impressions were recorded using the digital impression (DI) technique. Emax inlays were fabricated using computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technology and cemented to the prepared cavity using resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Subsequently, the marginal adaptation of inlay in the proximal and occlusal regions was evaluated under stereomicroscopy. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to determine the normality of the data. An unpaired t-test was utilized to compare the efficacy between the two study groups. Results: The traditional rubber base impression group had higher gap values in the occlusal region (1248.0 ± 179.83) and proximal region (1342.6 ± 136.42). In contrast, the digital impression technique showed smaller gap values in both the occlusal region (470.1 ± 123.36) and proximal region (476.2 ± 151.78). There was a significant difference in the gap values of traditional elastomeric and digital impression techniques (p < 0.001) in both occlusal and proximal regions with digital impressions showing the least value in the occlusal region. Conclusion: The intraoral scanner achieved better marginal adaptation compared to the conventional technique. Therefore, the performance of the digital impression technique surpassed the traditional elastomeric impression technique in the fabrication of ceramic inlays using CAD/CAM, making it a recommended choice for routine clinical practice. Clinical significance: Digital intraoral impressions can be utilized for the fabrication of indirect prostheses as they exhibit minimal margin discrepancy compared to traditional techniques. They improve accuracy and precision compared to traditional impressions, increase patient as well as operator comfort, and reduce the number of visits.

PDF Share
  1. Cicciù M, Fiorillo L, D’Amico C, et al. 3D digital impression systems compared with traditional techniques in dentistry: a recent data systematic review. Materials (Basel) 2020;13(8). DOI: 10.3390/ma13081982
  2. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017;2017:8427595. DOI: 10.1155/2017/8427595
  3. Alnassar T, Ozer F, Chiche G, et al. Effect of different ceramic primers on shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement to zirconia. J Adhesion Sci Technol 2016 13;1–10. DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2016.1184404
  4. Thota K, Jasthi S, Ravuri R, et al. A comparative evaluation of the dimensional stability of three different elastomeric impression materials after autoclaving – an invitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(10):ZC48–ZC50. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9768.5036
  5. Berrendero S, Salido MP, Ferreiroa A, et al. Comparative study of all-ceramic crowns obtained from conventional and digital impressions: clinical findings. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23(4):1745–1751. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2606-8
  6. Rippe MP, Monaco C, Volpe L, et al. Different methods for inlay production: effect on internal and marginal adaptation, adjustment time, and contact point. Oper Dent 2017;42(4):436–444. DOI: 10.2341/16-093-L
  7. Homsy FR, Özcan M, Khoury M, et al. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate inlays fabricated with milling, 3D printing, and conventional technologies. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(5):783–790. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.025
  8. Sim JY, Jang Y, Kim WC, et al. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63(1):25–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.02.002
  9. Holmes JR, Sulik WD, Holland GA, et al. Marginal fit of castable ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(5):594–599. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90153-2
  10. Sharma A, Abraham D, Gupita A, et al. Comparative evaluation of the marginal fit of inlays fabricated by conventional and digital impression techniques: a stereomicroscopic study. Contemp Clin Dent 2020;11(3):237–244. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_375_19
  11. Oz FD, Bolay S. Comparative evaluation of marginal adaptation and fracture strength of different ceramic inlays produced by CEREC omnicam and heat-pressed technique. Int J Dent 2018;2018:5152703. DOI: 10.1155/2018/5152703
  12. Bindl A, Mörmann WH. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(6):441–447. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01446.x
  13. García-Cuesta C, Faus-Llácer V, Zubizarreta-Macho Á, et al. A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner. J Clin Exp Dent 2021;13(5):e473–e478. DOI: 10.4317/jced.58140
  14. Soares CJ, Celiberto L, Dechichi P, et al. Marginal integrity and microleakage of direct and indirect composite inlays: SEM and stereomicroscopic evaluation. Braz Oral Res 2005;19(4):295–301. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242005000400011
  15. Brandt S, Winter A, Lauer HC, et al. IPS E.max for all-ceramic restorations: clinical survival and success rates of full-coverage crowns and fixed partial dentures. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(3). DOI: 10.3390/ma12030462
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.