A Comparative Analysis of the Marginal Fit of Fixed Prostheses Fabricated Using Digital and Conventional Workflows

Authors

  • Suze Andreia de Queiroz Sarmento CESMAC
  • José Gilberto de Lima Silva Neto
  • Ângela Líbia Chagas Amaral Araújo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2026v8n5p1418-1432

Keywords:

Dental Prosthesis, Fixed Partial Denture, Prosthesis Failure.

Abstract

Objective: To analyze marginal fit in fixed prostheses using digital and conventional workflows, treatment success and longevity, preparation techniques, and materials used, as well as professional skills and methods. Literature Review: Marginal fit is one of the most complex aspects of a prosthesis, regardless of whether it is fabricated using a digital or conventional workflow. Success and longevity depend on the preparation technique used, the dentist’s skill, and the materials used for fabrication. Conversely, problems related to poor marginal adaptation can lead to periodontal disease, marginal infiltration, and potentially malignant conditions. Conclusion: There are various methods for achieving marginal adaptation using restorative materials, laboratory analyses, and clinical assessments; however, even with the use of these current methods, there are still issues that reflect a failure to achieve proper adjustments in the cervical region tailored to each patient’s specific case. The importance of this adaptation implies o enhance the protection of dental structures against caries, gum disease, infiltration, and potentially malignant oral diseases

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AHMED, N. et al. Digital impressions versus conventional impressions in prosthodontics: Asystematic review. Journal of Prosthodontic Research, v. 68, n. 2, p. 148–160. 2024.

AKAT, B. et al. Does CAD software affect the marginal and internal fit of milled full ceramic Crowns. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, v. 127, n. 3, p. 405–410. 2022.

BURZYNSKI, J. A. et al. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions:Time and patient satisfaction. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, v. 120, n. 6, p. 894–899.2018.

FONTANIVE IW, et al. Comparação entre moldagem convencional escaneamento intraoral e escaneamento extraoral na adaptação marginal de próteses fias e sua influência na percepção dos pacientes. v.1,n.1, p.1-29. 2025.

GIACHETTI L, et al. Accuracy of digital impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review of clinical studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2020;33(2):192-201.

GIACHETTI L, et al.. Accuracy of digital impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review of clinical studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2020;33(2):192-201.

LAM WYH, et al. Dental students’ preference and perception on intraoral scanning and impression making. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02894-3

NEDELCU R, et al. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: An in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):1-11.

NEDELCU, R. et al. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy ofconventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. Journal of Dentistry, [S.l.], v. 69,p. 110–118, 2018.

OLIVEIRA, M. V . Avaliação da adaptação marginal de coroas de dissilicato de lítiofabricadas com o sistema CAD/CAM utilizando escaneamento intra e extraoral. Salvador:Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública. 2020.

PEDROCHE, L. O. et al. Marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained using different digital scanning methods. Brazilian Oral Research, v. 30, n. 1, p. e113. 2016.

PEGORARO, L. F. (2014). Fundamentos de Prótese Fixa. [Minha Biblioteca]. Retirado de https://integrada.minhabiblioteca.com.br/#/books/9788536702469/

SAILER I, BENIC GI, FEHMER V, HÄMMERLE CHF, MÜHLEMANN S. Randomized controlled within- subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part II: CAD-CAM versus conventional laboratory procedures. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(1):43-8.

SAKORNWIMON N, LEEVAILOJ C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(3):386-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.019

SASON, G. K. et al. A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions:An in vivo study. Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, v. 18, n. 2, p. 108–116. 2018.

SHAH, N. et al. Validation of digital impressions’ accuracy obtained using intraoral andextraoral scanners: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, v. 12, n. 18, p. 5833, 2023.

SHIMIZU, S. et al. The accuracy of the CAD system using intraoral and extraoral scannersfor designing of fixed dental prostheses. Dental Materials Journal, v. 36, n. 4, p. 402–407.2017.

SON, Y .-T.; SON, K.-B.; LEE, K.-B. Trueness of intraoral scanners according to subgingival depth of abutment for fixed prosthesis. Scientific Reports, v. 12, 20786. 2022.

TAKEUCHI Y, et al. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci. 2018;60(1):1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.17-0444

TAKEUCHI, Y . et al. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. Journal of Oral Science, v. 60, n. 1, p. 1–7. 2018.

YÜZBASIOGLU, E.; KURT, H.; TURUNC, R.; BILIR, H. Comparison of digital andconventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health, v. 14, n. 1, p. 10. 2014.

ZHANG, T. et al. Evaluating the accuracy of three intraoral scanners using models containing different numbers of crown-prepared abutments. Journal of Dental Sciences, v. 17, n. 3, p. 204-210. 2022.

Published

2026-05-21

How to Cite

Sarmento, S. A. de Q., Silva Neto, J. G. de L., & Araújo, Ângela L. C. A. (2026). A Comparative Analysis of the Marginal Fit of Fixed Prostheses Fabricated Using Digital and Conventional Workflows . Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences, 8(5), 1418–1432. https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2026v8n5p1418-1432