García-Cuesta C, Faus-Llácer V, Zubizarreta-Macho A, Botello-Torres R, Faus-Matoses V. A comparison of the marginal adaptation of composite overlays fabricated with silicone and an intraoral scanner. J Clin Exp Dent. 2021;13(5):e473-8.

doi:10.4317/jced.58140

___________

References

1. Wassell RW, Walls AWG, McCabe JF. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent. 2000;28:375-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(00)00013-0

2. Pallesen U, Qvist V. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2003;7:71-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0201-z PMid:12740693

3. Soares CJ, Giannini M, Oliveira MT de, Paulillo LAMS, Martins LRM. Effect of surface treatments of laboratory-fabricated composites on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004;12:45-50. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572004000100009 PMid:21365151

4. Lambert H, Durand JC, Jacquot B, Fages M. Dental biomaterials for chairside CAD/CAM: State of the art. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9:486-95. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.6.486 PMid:29279770 PMCid:PMC5741454

5. Patzelt SBM, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145:542-51. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.23 PMid:24878708

6. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10 PMid:24479892 PMCid:PMC3913616

7. Donovan TE, Chee WWL. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48:445-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2003.12.014 PMid:15172610

8. Ting-shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24:313-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12218 PMid:25220390

9. Galhano GAP, Pellizzer EP, Mazaro JVQ. Optical impression systems for CAD-CAM restorations. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:575-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31826b8043 PMid:23172483

10. Kravitz ND, Groth C, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR. Intraoral digital scanners. J Clin Orthod. 2014;48:337-47.

11. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:405-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90170-4 PMid:2685240

12. Hopp CD, Land MF. Considerations for ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: A review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2013;5:21-32. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S42016 PMid:23750101 PMCid:PMC3666490

13. de Paula Silveira AC, Chaves SB, Hilgert LA, Ribeiro APD. Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated composite resin and ceramic crowns scanned by 2 intraoral cameras. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117:386-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.017 PMid:27677214

14. Contrepois M, Soenen A, Bartala M, Laviole O. Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110:447-454.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.003 PMid:24120071

15. Rippe MP, Monaco C, Volpe L, Bottino MA, Scotti R, Valandro LF. Different methods for inlay production: Effect on internal and marginal adaptation, adjustment time, and contact point. Oper Dent. 2017;42:436-44. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-093-L PMid:28402732

16. Zarrati S, Mahboub F. Marginal adaptation of indirect composite, glass-ceramic inlays and direct composite: an in vitro evaluation. J Dent (Tehran). 2010;7:77-83. PMid:21998779 PMCid:PMC3184745

17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5152703 PMid:29853894 PMCid:PMC5944286

18. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010;38:553-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015 PMid:20381576

19. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:555-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.002 PMid:24630399

20. Nawafleh NA, Mack F, Evans J, Mackay J, Hatamleh MM. Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: A literature review. J Prosthodont. 2013;22:419-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12006 PMid:23289599

21. Guess PC, Vagkopoulou T, Zhang Y, Wolkewitz M, Strub JR. Marginal and internal fit of heat pressed versus CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic onlays after exposure to thermo-mechanical fatigue. J Dent. 2014;42:199-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.10.002 PMid:24161516 PMCid:PMC4450820

22. Lima FF, Neto CF, Rubo JH, Santos GC, Moraes Coelho Santos MJ. Marginal adaptation of CAD-CAM onlays: Influence of preparation design and impression technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:396-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.010 PMid:29551386

23. Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P, Jeannin C, Pradelle N, Seux D, et al. Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations: A systematic review of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:590-597.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.06.006 PMid:30509548