Numerous studies have previously evaluated the marginal and internal fit of fixed prostheses; however, few reports have performed an objective comparison of the various methods used for their assessment. The purpose of this study was to compare five marginal and internal fit assessment methods for fixed prostheses. A specially designed sample was used to measure the marginal and internal fit of the prosthesis according to the cross-sectional method (CSM), silicone replica technique (SRT), triple scan method (TSM), micro-computed tomography (MCT), and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The five methods showed significant differences in the four regions that were assessed (p < 0.001). The marginal, axial, angle, and occlusal regions showed low mean values: CSM (23.2 µm), TSM (56.3 µm), MCT (84.3 µm), and MCT (102.6 µm), respectively. The marginal fit for each method was in the range of 23.2–83.4 µm and internal fit (axial, angle, and occlusal) ranged from 44.8–95.9 µm, 84.3–128.6 µm, and 102.6–140.5 µm, respectively. The marginal and internal fit showed significant differences depending on the method. Even if the assessment values of the marginal and internal fit are found to be in the allowable clinical range, the differences in the values according to the method should be considered.

This study aimed to evaluate the intaglio surface trueness of interim dental crowns fabricated with three 3-dimensional (3D) printing and milling technologies. Dental crown was designated and assigned as a computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM). Interim dental crowns were fabricated based on CRM using two types of 3D printer technologies (stereolithography apparatus and digital light processing) and one type of milling machine (n = 15 per technology). The fabricated interim dental crowns were obtained via 3D modeling of the intaglio surface using a laboratory scanner and designated as CAD test models (CTMs). The alignment and 3D comparison of CRM and CTM were performed based on the intaglio surface using a 3D inspection software program (Geomagic Control X). Statistical analysis was validated using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). There were significant differences in intaglio surface trueness between the three different fabrication technologies, and high trueness values were observed in the milling group (p < 0.05). In the milling group, there was a significant difference in trueness according to the location of the intaglio surface (p < 0.001). In the manufacturing process of interim dental crowns, 3D printing technologies showed superior and uniform manufacturing accuracy than milling technology.

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the 3D analysis for complete arch, half arch, and tooth preparation region by using four analysis software programs. The CAD reference model (CRM; N = 1 per region) and CAD test models (CTMs; N = 20 per software) of complete arch, half arch, and tooth preparation were obtained by using scanners. For both CRM and CTMs, mesh data other than the same area were deleted. For 3D analysis, four analysis software programs (Geomagic control X, GOM Inspect, Cloudcompare, and Materialise 3-matic) were used in the alignment of CRM and CTMs as well as in the 3D comparison. Root mean square (RMS) was regarded as the result of the 3D comparison. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests were performed for statistical comparison of four analysis software programs (α = 0.05). In half-arch and tooth preparation region, the four analysis software programs showed a significant difference in RMS values (p < 0.001), but in complete-arch region, no significant difference was found among the four software programs (p = 0.139). As the area of the virtual cast for 3D analysis becomes smaller, variable results are obtained depending on the software program used, and the difference in results among software programs are not considered in the 3D analysis for complete-arch region.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dental three-dimensional (3D) scanners according to the types of teeth. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) was obtained by scanning the reference typodont model using a high-precision industrial scanner (Solutionix C500, MEDIT). In addition, a CAD test model (CTM) was obtained using seven types of dental 3D scanners (desktop scanners (E1 and DOF Freedom HD) and intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios2, Trios3, and i500)). The 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X, 3DSystems) was used to segment the CRM according to the types of teeth and to superimpose the CTM based on the segmented teeth. The 3D accuracy of the scanner was then analyzed according to the types of teeth. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences according to the types of teeth in statistical analysis, and the Tukey HSD test was used for post hoc testing (α = 0.05). Both desktop and intraoral scanners showed significant differences in accuracy according to the types of teeth (P < 0.001), and the accuracy of intraoral scanners tended to get worse from anterior to posterior. Therefore, when scanning a complete arch using an intraoral scanner, the clinician should consider the tendency for the accuracy to decrease from anterior to posterior.