ABSTRACT
Objectives: Since one-third of persons suffer a dental trauma, treatment of anterior teeth using post and core (PC) is becoming important. In teeth with extensive destruction, cast PC (CPC) remain the "gold standard", even though they lead to aesthetic impairment and have a mismatching elastic modulus to that of dentin. Prefabricated fibre-reinforced posts have elastic modulus similar to that of dentin but the accuracy of fit and mechanical stability are worse. This study was aimed to evaluate the deviation and mechanical performance of fibre-reinforced CAD/CAM PC (FRPC) fabricated in a fully digital chairside workflow, compared to those of CPC. Methods: On 30 teeth, a PC preparation was conducted, and a conventional and digital post impression were taken with an intraoral scanner. Fifteen teeth each were treated with CPC and FRPC, respectively. The deviation was evaluated by superimposing the datasets of the digitalised stone models and digital post impressions. Decementation and root fracture during chewing simulation were analysed by microscopy and X-ray. Statistical analysis was performed by pairwise comparison and Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: The median deviation for the "coronal", "middle" and "apical" were 14.5, 18.0 and 113.7 µm, respectively. The pairwise comparison for "coronal"/"middle" showed no significance (p = 0.465), whereas that for "coronal"/"apical" and "middle"/"apical" showed highly significant differences (p < 0.001). After chewing simulation, five decementations and two root fractures were detected for CPC. For FRPC, neither decementation nor root fracture were documented. Significance: Within the limitations of this study, FRPC performed significantly better than CPC.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Clinical data for CAD/CAM post and cores (PC) is still scarce, even though developments in digital dentistry have improved dental treatment in many aspects. Therefore, the purpose of this in vivo study was to compare CAD/CAM PC fabricated in a fully digital chairside workflow to conventional cast PC (CPC) according to the accuracy of fit and the impression taking. The null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference between CAD/CAM PC and CPC. METHODS: The study was conducted on 30 teeth in 25 patients receiving a CPC during their prosthetic treatment plan. On each tooth a conventional and a digital post impression were taken. Subsequently, one CPC following a conventional and one CAD/CAM PC following a digital workflow were fabricated. Both PC were tried-in intraorally and assessed according to a standardised evaluation sheet. The deviation between the two impression methods was evaluated by superimposing the datasets in a 3D analysis software. Statistical analysis for pairwise comparison was conducted according to Wilcoxon and median test with a significance level of p = 0.05. RESULTS: CAD/CAM PC performed significantly better compared to CPC according to accuracy of fit (p = 0.022) and feasibility of impression taking (p < 0.001). The deviation between post impression methods increased from "coronal" to "apical". Between "coronal"/"middle" no significant difference (p = 0.158) was detected, whereas the pairwise comparison between the other measurement categories showed significant differences (p = 0.002, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The null hypothesis was rejected since CAD/CAM PC performed significantly better and the deviation between the post impression methods showed significant differences. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: By using intraoral scanners (IOS) teeth can be restored with customised CAD/CAM PC in a single session. Within the limitations of this study the fully digital chairside workflow led to superior accuracy of fit of PC and higher feasibility of impression taking than the conventional workflow for CPC.
