Abstract

Background: Advancements in restorative dentistry, especially all-ceramic restorations, have improved aesthetics, biocompatibility, and durability. The emergence of digital impression techniques has sparked debate over their clinical efficiency and accuracy compared to conventional methods in fabricating zirconia crowns. Objectives: To evaluate the marginal fit of zirconia crowns fabricated using conventional and digital impressions. 2. To assess prosthodontic outcomes between the two techniques. 3. To compare patient-centered outcomes across both groups. Methods: Twenty-one patients requiring zirconia crowns for contralateral mandibular posterior teeth were selected and divided into two groups: Group A (conventional impression) and Group B (digital impression). Crowns were fabricated using CAD/CAM. Marginal fit was assessed using a stereomicroscope (40X magnification), prosthodontic outcomes via USPHS criteria, and patient satisfaction using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Data were analysed with SPSS v26 (p < 0.05). Results: Digital impressions resulted in superior marginal fit, better occlusal contacts, and improved colour matching. Patient satisfaction was higher in the digital group. Both groups produced clinically acceptable crowns, but digital impressions showed fewer marginal discrepancies and better overall prosthodontic outcomes. Conclusion: Digital impression techniques offer greater accuracy, efficiency, and patient comfort compared to conventional methods. Given their superior performance in key clinical parameters, they represent a preferred approach in contemporary prosthodontic practice.

• 1.   Etman M.K., Woolford M.J. Three-year clinical evaluation of two ceramic crown systems: A preliminary study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2010; 103: 80–90.
• 2.   Sakornwimon N., Leevailoj C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2017; 118: 386–391.
• 3.   Tang Z., Zhao X., Wang H., et al. Clinical evaluation of monolithic zirconia crowns for posterior teeth restorations. Medicine (United States); 98. 1 October 2019.
• 4.   Tabesh M., Nejatidanesh F., Savabi G., et al. Marginal adaptation of zirconia complete-coverage fixed dental restorations made from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta- analysis.
• 5.   Yucel M.T., Aykent F., Avunduk M.C. In vitro evaluation of the marginal fit of different allceramic crowns. J Dent Sci 2013; 8: 225–230.
• 6.   Elrashid A.H., Alkahtani A.H., Alqahtani S.J., et al. Stereomicroscopic evaluation of marginal fit of E.Max press and E.Max computer-aided design and computer- assisted manufacturing lithium disilicate ceramic crowns: An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2019; 9: 178–184.
• 7.   Meirowitz A., Bitterman Y., Levy S., et al. An in vitro evaluation of marginal fit zirconia crowns fabricated by a CAD-CAM dental laboratory and a milling center. BMC Oral Health; 19.
• 8.   Ng J., Ruse D., Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2014; 112: 555–560.
• 9.   Mörmann W.H., Stawarczyk B., Ender A., et al. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013; 20: 113– 125.
• 10.   Zarauz C., Valverde A., Martinez-Rus F., et al. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of allceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 799–806.
• 11.   Holmes J.R., Bayne S.C., Holland G.A., Sulik W.D. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1989 Oct 1;62(4):405-8.
• 12.   Lee S.J., Gallucci G.O. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: Efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 111–115.
• 13.   Christel P., Meunier A., Heller M., et al. Mechanical properties and short-term in- vivo evaluation of yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized zirconia.
• 14.   Brewer J.D., Garlapo D.A., Chipps E.A., et al. Clinical discrimination between autoglazed and polished porcelain surfaces.
• 15.   Patterson P-W, Mclundie AC, Stirrups SR, et al. SFCTEON EDITORS ey of a porcelain refinishing system in restoring su after grinding with fine and extra-fine diamond burs.
• 16.   Kelly J.R., Nishimura I., Campbell SD. Ceramics in dentistry: Historical roots and current perspectives. J Dent Sci 2018; 8: 45–70.
• 17.   Haselton D.R., Diaz-Arnold A.M., Hillis S.L. Clinical assessment of high- strength allceramic crowns. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2000 Apr 1;83(4):396-401.
• 18.   Chevalier J., Deville S., Münch E., et al. Critical effect of cubic phase on aging in 3 mol% yttria- stabilized zirconia ceramics for hip replacement prosthesis.
• 19.   Lee K-B, Park C-W, Kim K-H, et al. Marginal and Internal Fit of All ceramic Crowns Fabricated with Two Different CAD/CAM Systems. 2008. Manicone PF, Rossi Iommetti P, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: Basic properties and clinical applications. Journal of Dentistry 2007; 35: 819– 826.
• 20.   Krishna J.V., Kumar V.S., Savadi R.C. Evolution of metal-free ceramics. Journal of Indian Prosthodontist Society 2009; 9: 70–75.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding