Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2026
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D
Juliana B da Costa1, Fernanda Pelogia, Bradley Hagedorn
1Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. dacostaj@ohsu.edu
Objectives:
This study evaluated the marginal gaps on several surfaces of onlays created with the Cerec 3D system using one intraoral and two extraoral optical impression methods.
Methods:
A human molar (#19) was mounted with its adjacent teeth on a typodont (Frasaco) and prepared for a MODL onlay. The typodont was assembled in the mannequin head in order to simulate clinical conditions. The same operator took 36 individual optical impressions using a CEREC 3D camera. For group 1 (IP), a thin layer of titanium dioxide powder (CEREC powder-VITA) was applied directly onto the surface of the preparation for imaging (n = 12). For group 2 (EP), a sectional impression was taken with hydrocolloid Identic Syringable (Dux Dental), a die made with polyvinylsiloxane KwikkModel Scan (R-dental Dentalerzeugnisse GmbH) and powdered with titanium dioxide for imaging (n = 12). For group 3 (ES), a sectional impression was taken with PVS and a sectional stock tray, a die fabricated in stone (Diamond die- HI-TEC Dental Products) and the die being imaged without powdering (n = 12). One operator designed and machined the onlays in VitaBlocks Mark II for Cerec (VITA) using a CEREC 3D. The marginal gaps (microm) were measured with an optical microscope (50x) at 12 points, three on each surface of the MODL. The results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA/ Tukey's (p = 0.05).
Results:
The overall mean marginal gaps (microm) for the three methods were: IP = 111.6 (+/- 34.0); EP = 161.4 (+/- 37.6) and ES = 116.8 (+/- 42.3). IP and ES were equal, but both were significantly less than EP. The pooled mean marginal gaps (microm) for the occlusal = 110.5 (+/- 39) and lingual = 111.5 (+/- 30.5) surfaces were equivalent and significantly less than the distal = 136.5 (+/- 42.5) and mesial = 161.1 (+/- 43.3).
Conclusion:
The marginal gap of CEREC 3D onlay restorations was not different when the optical impression was taken intraorally vs extraorally using a stone cast that does not require powdering. The lingual and occlusal surfaces showed the lowest gaps.
