Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Volumn 116, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 777-782

  Benic, Goran I ^a   Mühlemann, Sven ^a   Fehmer, Vincent ^b   Hämmerle, Christoph H F ^a   Sailer, Irena ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL PORCELAIN; LITHIA DISILICATE;

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL IMPRESSION; HUMAN; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TOOTH CROWN; WORKFLOW;

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; CROWNS; DENTAL IMPRESSION MATERIALS; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL PORCELAIN; HUMANS; WORKFLOW;

EID: 84992718282     PISSN: 00223913     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.007     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. 1 Kapos, T., Evans, C., CAD/CAM technology for implant abutments, crowns, and superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29:suppl (2014), 117–136.
2. 2 Wittneben, J.G., Wright, R.F., Weber, H.P., Gallucci, G.O., A systematic review of the clinical performance of CAD/CAM single-tooth restorations. Int J Prosthodont 22 (2009), 466–471.
3. 3 Christensen, G.J., Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 140 (2009), 1301–1304.
4. 4 Reich, S., Vollborn, T., Mehl, A., Zimmermann, M., Intraoral optical impression systems—an overview. Int J Comput Dent 16 (2013), 143–162.
5. 5 Lee, S.J., Gallucci, G.O., Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 24 (2013), 111–115.
6. 6 Joda, T., Bragger, U., Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 26 (2015), 1430–1435.
7. 7 Ahrberg, D., Lauer, H.C., Ahrberg, M., Weigl, P., Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 20 (2016), 291–300.
8. 8 Joda, T., Bragger, U., Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res, April 12, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12600 [ePub ahead of print].
9. 9 Wismeijer, D., Mans, R., van Genuchten, M., Reijers, H.A., Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 25 (2014), 1113–1118.
10. 10 Adams, H.F., Managing gingival tissues during definitive restorative treatment. Quintessence Int 12 (1981), 141–149.
11. 11 Copoulos, P.C., The “check-bite” method in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 21 (1969), 333–337.
12. 12 Lee, S.J., Macarthur, R.X., Gallucci, G.O., An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 110 (2013), 420–423.