Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Investigation on the quality analysis of 1 312 single crown digital models

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the quality of single crown digital models, enhance communication between clinicians and technicians, and improve the quality of restorations to further reduce remake rate.

METHODS

A total of 1 312 single crown digital models (180 anterior teeth, 294 premolars, and 838 molars) were randomly selected from a large commercial dental factory. The digital models were evaluated by three investigators with the same working experience with the same intraoral scanning system (CEREC). CEREC SW 4.4 was used in capturing the images of single crown preparations, and prepCheck 3.1 was used in evaluating the quality of single crown digital models.

RESULTS

Approximately 6.55%, 0.08%, 81.17%, 19.59%, and 22.48% of 1 312 single crown digital models did not meet the standards of the undercut, surface quality, margin quality, buccal-lingual taper, and mesiodistal taper, respectively. Moreover, 23.25%, 28.51%, 28.43%, and 28.35% of the investigated single crown digital models did not meet the standards of the buccal inclination taper, lingual inclination taper, mesial inclination taper, and distal inclination taper, respectively. The quality of anterior teeth, premolars, molars at the margin quality, buccal-lingual taper, mesiodistal taper, buccal inclination taper, lingual inclination taper, mesial inclination taper, and distal inclination taper significantly varied in the evaluation results (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the undercut and surface quality met the standard, the overall situation of the quality of the single crown digital preparation model was poor, and the quality of the preparation needs to be improved urgently.

Laboratory Technician Assessment of the Quality of Single-Unit Crown Preparations and Impressions as Predictors of the Clinical Acceptability of Crowns as Determined by the Treating Dentist: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

PURPOSE

In-laboratory assessment by laboratory technicians may offer insight to increase clinical success of dental crowns, and research in this area is lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network enrolled patients in a study about single-unit crowns; laboratory technicians evaluated the quality of tooth preparations and impressions. The primary outcome for each crown was clinical acceptability (CAC), as judged by the treating dentist. A secondary outcome was "Goodness of Fit (GOF)," a composite score of several aspects of clinical fit, also judged by the study dentist. A mixed-effects logistic regression was used to analyze associations between laboratory technician ratings and the CAC and GOF.

RESULTS

Dentists (n = 205) evaluated 3731 crowns. Technicians ranked the marginal detail of impressions as good or excellent in 92% of cases; other aspects of the impression were ranked good or excellent 88% of the time. Regarding tooth preparation, about 90% of preparations were considered adequate (neither excessive nor inadequate reduction). Factors associated with higher CAC were more preparation taper, and use of optical imaging. Factors associated with better GOF were higher impression quality, greater occlusal reduction, more preparation taper, and optical imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall quality of preparations and impressions was very high, as evaluated by laboratory technicians. Several clinical parameters were associated with higher CAC and GOF. Clinicians who struggle with crown remakes might consider less conservative tooth preparation, as well as using digital impression technology.

Clinical acceptance of single-unit crowns and its association with impression and tissue displacement techniques: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The definitive impression for a single-unit crown involves many material and technique factors that may affect the success of the crown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to determine whether impression technique (tray selection), impression material, or tissue displacement technique are associated with the clinical acceptability of the crown (CAC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network documented details of the preparation, impression, and delivery of 3730 consecutive single-unit crowns. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations between impression techniques and materials and the CAC and to assess associations between the presence of a subgingival margin with the displacement technique and the outcome variables CAC and number of impressions required.

RESULTS

Of the 3730 crowns, 3589 (96.2%) were deemed clinically acceptable. A significant difference in the CAC was found with different impression techniques (P<.001) and different impression materials (P<.001). The percentage of the CAC for digital scans was 99.5%, 95.8% for dual-arch trays, 95.2% for quadrant trays, and 94.0% for complete-arch impression trays. Although no statistically significant difference was found in the CAC produced with dual-arch trays without both mesial and distal contacts, crowns fabricated under these conditions were less likely to achieve excellent occlusion. The percentage of the CAC for digital scans was 99.5%, 97.0% for polyether impressions, 95.5% for polyvinyl siloxane impressions, and 90.5% for other impression materials. Accounting for the location of the margin, the use of a dual-cord displacement technique was significantly associated with lower rates of requiring more than 1 impression (P=.015, odds ratio=1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-arch trays produced clinically acceptable crowns; however, if the prepared tooth was unbounded, the occlusal fit was more likely to have been compromised. Digital scans produced a slightly higher rate of CAC than conventional impression materials. The use of a dual-cord technique was associated with a decreased need to remake impressions when the margins were subgingival.

Preparation Techniques Used to Make Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

PURPOSE

To: (1) determine which preparation techniques clinicians use in routine clinical practice for single-unit crown restorations; (2) test whether certain practice, dentist, and patient characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in a questionnaire regarding preparation techniques, dental equipment used for single-unit crown preparations, scheduled chair time, occlusal clearance determination, location of finish lines, magnification during preparation, supplemental lighting, shade selection, use of intraoral photographs, and trimming dies. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA.

RESULTS

Of the 2132 eligible dentists, 1777 (83%) responded to the survey. The top two margin configuration choices for single-unit crown preparation for posterior crowns were chamfer/heavy chamfer (65%) and shoulder (23%). For anterior crowns, the most prevalent choices were the chamfer (54%) and the shoulder (37%) configurations. Regarding shade selection, a combination of dentist, assistant, and patient input was used to select anterior shades 59% of the time. Photographs are used to communicate shade selection with the laboratory in about half of esthetically demanding cases. The ideal finish line was located at the crest of gingival tissue for 49% of respondents; 29% preferred 1 mm below the crest; and 22% preferred the finish line above the crest of tissue. Average chair time scheduled for a crown preparation appointment was 76 ± 21 minutes. Practice and dentist characteristics were significantly associated with margin choice including practice type (p < 0.001), region (p < 0.001), and years since graduation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Network dentists prefer chamfer/heavy chamfer margin designs, followed by shoulder preparations. These choices were related to practice and dentist characteristics.

Remake Rates for Single-Unit Crowns in Clinical Practice: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

PURPOSE

Some crowns returned from the laboratory are clinically unacceptable, and dentists must remake them. The objectives of this study were to: (1) quantify the remake rate of single-unit crowns; and (2) identify factors significantly associated with crown remakes and intraoral fit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dentists participating in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network recruited patients needing crowns and documented fabrication techniques, patient characteristics, and outcomes. Crowns were considered clinically acceptable or rejected. Also, various aspects of the clinical fit of the crown were graded and categorized as 'Goodness of Fit (GOF).' Dentist and patient characteristics were tested statistically for associations with crown acceptability and GOF.

RESULTS

More than 200 dentists participated in this study (N = 205) and evaluated 3750 single-unit crowns. The mean age (years) of patients receiving a crown was 55. The remake rate for crowns was 3.8%. The range of rejection rates among individual practitioners was 0% to 42%. Most clinicians (118, or 58%) did not reject any crowns; all rejections came from 42% of the clinicians (n = 87). The most common reasons for rejections were proximal misfit, marginal errors, and esthetic failures. Fewer years in practice was significantly associated with lower crown success rates and lower fit scores. GOF was also associated with practice busyness and patient insurance status, patient gender (dentists reported better fit for female patients), and patient ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

The crown remake rate in this study was about 4%. Remakes and crown GOF were associated with certain dentist and practice characteristics.