Comparison of marginal adaptation of monolithic crowns produced with different impression methods.

In this study, the marginal and internal adaptation of the monolithic blocks which were produced by digital and conventional impression methods, cemented with different polymerization types of resin cements, were examined. In the study, anatomical preparation of the molar acrylic tooth for full ceramic crown restoration was prepared, 160 analogue models were created. Impressions were taken by digital(D) and conventional(G) methods. Crown restorations were obtained from 4 different monolithic blocks. All restorations were cemented with dual-cured and light-cured cements(n=10). The restorations and analogs were scanned before and after cementation by 3D optical scanner. In Geomagic Control X software, image overlap performed. The data analyzed using SPSS 25.0 programme. The difference was considered significant if p<0.05. There was a significant difference between the marginal range of group(D)(111 μm) and group(G)(78 μm) (p<0.05). In group(D), a significant difference was found between the marginal range of the dual-cure group(121 μm) and the light-cure group(102 μm) (p<0.05). A significant difference was found between Prettau-Cerasmart (p=0.000), Zircon-Cerasmart (p=0.001) and Initial-Cerasmart (p=0.043). There was a significant difference between the internal volume value of group (D)(26 mm³) and group (G)(21 mm³) (p<0.05). According to the results of the study, it is found that the conventional impression method had showed better results in marginal and internal adaptation than the digital impression method. The marginal adaptation of light-cure cement was better than the dual-cure cement. There is a difference between marginal and internal adaptation of different materials, but they are all within clinically acceptable limits.