International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Fitness and Compressive Strength of Temporary Crowns Designed from 3Shape and Exocad Software: An In Vitro Study

Khalid Dhafer Al Hendi

Keywords : 3Shape dental system software, Compressive strength, Exocad software, Marginal fit, Temporary crown

Citation Information : Hendi KD. Comparative Evaluation of Fitness and Compressive Strength of Temporary Crowns Designed from 3Shape and Exocad Software: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023; 13 (4):216-221.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1433

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Purpose: To evaluate the fitness and compressive strength of temporary crowns designed in 3Shape and Exocad software. Materials and methods: A sound premolar was scanned by 3Shape intraoral scanner followed by standard tooth preparation, scanning, and matching to obtain the exact crown size of the unprepared premolar. A total of 100 crowns were designed using 3Shape Dental System (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark; n = 50) and Exocad (GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany; n = 50) and milled using poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) ViTA computer-aided design (CAD)—temp blocks. The fitness of temporary crown was evaluated by scanning and analyzing the thickness of silicone replica in Geomagic surface matching software. The compressive strength was evaluated by observing the first crack and ultimate failure of the crown using a universal testing machine. The data was recorded and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Independent t-tests were used to compare the studied variables. Results: The results showed a lower but insignificant discrepancy at margins (p = 0.072) in Exocad software (70.23 ± 18.19 µm) compared to 3Shape software (72.21 ± 17.63 µm). The internal fit at different positions (chamfer, axial, angle, and occlusal) was comparatively better with Exocad software than with 3Shape software. Significant difference (p = 0.001) in compressive force required to make the first crack was found in 3Shape-designed crowns (1124.65 ± 170.54 N) and in Exocad-designed crowns 1004.03 ± 146.98 N). Significant difference (p = 0.001) was found in ultimate compressive strength with 3Shape (1731.31 ± 81.43 N) and Exocad (1522.6 ± 142.53 N) prepared crowns. Conclusion: Marginal fit and internal fit of crowns from both softwares are comparable. Compressive strength of crowns prepared from 3Shape is better than that of Exocad software.

  1. Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK, et al. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(5):474–497. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00259-2
  2. Abduo J. Accuracy of casts produced from conventional and digital workflows: a qualitative and quantitative analyses. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11(2):138–146. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.138
  3. Kim DY, Lee KE, Jeon JH, et al. Evaluation of the reproducibility of various abutments using a blue light model scanner. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10(4):328–334. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.4.328
  4. Park HN, Lim YJ, Yi WJ, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners using an intraoral environment simulator. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10(1):58–64. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.58
  5. Park JM, Kim RJ, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(1):113–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.025
  6. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, et al. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27(4):465–472. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12567
  7. Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, et al. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41(11):853–874. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12205
  8. Christopoulou I, Kaklamanos EG, Makrygiannakis MA, et al. Intraoral scanners in orthodontics: a critical review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19(3):1407. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031407
  9. Sadid-Zadeh R, Katsavochristou A, Squires T, et al. Accuracy of marginal fit and axial wall contour for lithium disilicate crowns fabricated using three digital workflows. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(1):121–127. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.003
  10. Su FY, Tsai JC, Morton D, et al. Use of an open–source CAD software program and additive manufacturing technology to design and fabricate a definitive cast for retrofitting a crown to an existing removable partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(4):351–354. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.017
  11. Tapiea L, Lebonb N, Mawussic B, et al. Understanding dental CAD/CAM for restora-tions–the digital workflow from a mechanical engineering viewpoint. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18(1):21–44.
  12. Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Arakida T, et al. Digital impression and jaw relation record for the fabrication of CAD/CAM custom tray. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62(4):509–513. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.02.001
  13. Jeong ID, Kim WC, Park J, et al. Ceramic molar crown reproducibility by digital workflow manufacturing: an in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9(4):252–256. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.252
  14. Jang D, Son K, Lee Kb. A comparative study of the fitness and trueness of a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis fabricated using two digital workflows: Appl Sci 2019;9(14):2778. DOI: 10.3390/app9142778
  15. CAD-Temp multiColor. VITA Zahnfabrik.,27568.html
  16. Lo Russo L, Caradonna G, Biancardino M, et al. Digital versus conventional workflow for the fabrication of multiunit fixed prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis of vertical marginal fit in controlled in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(5):435–440. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.001
  17. Varol S, Kulak-Özkan Y. In vitro comparison of marginal and internal fit of press-on-metal ceramic (PoM) restorations with zirconium-supported and conventional metal ceramic fixed partial dentures before and after veneering. J Prosthodont 2015;24(5):387–393. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12229
  18. Bayramoğlu E, Özkan YK, Yildiz C. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of press-on-metal and conventional ceramic systems for three- and four-unit implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(1):52–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.01.002
  19. Wang W, Yu H, Liu Y, et al. Trueness analysis of zirconia crowns fabricated with 3-dimensional printing. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(2):285–291. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.012
  20. Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8(5):354–362. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354
  21. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28(1):3–12. DOI: 10.1016/
  22. Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37(11):866–876. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02113.x
  23. Demir N, Ozturk AN, Malkoc MA. Evaluation of the marginal fit of full ceramic crowns by the microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) technique. Eur J Dent 2014;8(4):437–444. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.143612
  24. Att W, Komine F, Gerds T, et al. Marginal adaptation of three different zirconium dioxide three-unit fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101(4):239–247. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60047-0
  25. Son K, Lee S, Kang SH, et al. A comparison study of marginal and internal fit assessment methods for fixed dental prostheses. J Clin Med 2019;8(6):785. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8060785
  26. Laurent M, Scheer P, Dejou J, et al. Clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of cast crowns-validation of the silicone replica method. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35(2):116–122. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2003.01203.x
  27. Abd El Galil EG, Mohamed SL, Rizk FN, et al. Evaluation of two computer–aided design software on the adaptation of digitally constructed maxillary complete denture. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2021;21(4):383–390. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_137_21
  28. Lo Russo L, Guida L, Zhurakivska K, et al. Intaglio surface trueness of milled and 3D-printed digital maxillary and mandibular dentures: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129(1):131–139. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.003
  29. Al-Hawwaz ZM, Ibraheem AF. Marginal and internal fitness of full contour CAD/CAM fabricated zirconia crowns using different digital intra-oral scanners (an in vitro study). J Pure Appl Microbiol 2018;12(2):839–844. DOI: 10.22207/JPAM.12.2.46
  30. Ashtiani RE, Khanlar LN, Mahshid M, et al. Comparison of dimensional accuracy of conventionally and digitally manufactured intracoronal restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(2):233–238. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.014
  31. Ghaffari T, Nourizadeh A, Shafiei E, et al. Compressive strength of temporary crowns made from default design in two types of software. J Dent (Shiraz) 2023;24(1):47–52. DOI: 10.30476/DENTJODS.2022.89736.1433
  32. Reeponmaha T, Angwaravong O, Angwaravong TH. Comparison of fracture strength after thermo-mechanical aging between provisional crowns made with CAD/CAM and conventional method. J Adv Prosthodont 2020;12(4):218–224. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.4.218
  33. Abdullah AO, Tsitrou EA, Pollington S. Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24(3):258–263. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720150451
  34. DE Vico G, Ottria L, Bollero P, et al. Aesthetic and functionality in fixed prosthodontic: sperimental and clinical analysis of the CAD-CAM systematic 3Shape. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2008;1(3-4):104–115.
  35. Al Hamad KQ. Learning curve of intraoral scanning by prosthodontic residents. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(2):277–283. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.003
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.