The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate marginal and internal fits of ceramic crowns fabricated with chairside computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems. An experimental model based on ISO 12836:2015 was digitally scanned with different intraoral scanners (Omnicam (CEREC), EZIS PO (DDS), and CS3500 (Carestream)). Ceramic crowns were fabricated using the CAD/CAM process recommended by each system (CEREC, EZIS, and Carestream systems; N = 15). The 3-dimensional (3D) marginal and internal fit of each ceramic crown was measured using a 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X). Differences among the systems and various measurements were evaluated using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Statistically significant differences were validated using pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Occlusal gaps in the CEREC, EZIS, and Carestream groups were 113.0, 161.3, and 438.2 µm, respectively (p < 0.001). The axial gaps were 83.4, 78.0, and 107.9 µm, respectively. The marginal gaps were 77.8, 99.3, and 60.6 µm, respectively, and the whole gaps were 85.9, 107.3, and 214.0 µm, respectively. Significant differences were observed with the EZIS system compared with the other two systems in terms of the marginal gap sizes. The CEREC system showed no significant differences among the four measured regions. However, the EZIS and Carestream systems did show a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). All three systems were judged to be capable of fabricating clinically acceptable prostheses, because the marginal gap, which is the most important factor in the marginal fit of prostheses, was recorded to be below 100 µm in all three systems.

中文翻译：

---

从不同的座椅旁CAD / CAM系统制造的陶瓷假体的边缘和内部拟合：一项体外研究

这项体外研究的目的是评估使用椅旁计算机辅助设计和制造（CAD / CAM）系统制造的陶瓷冠的边缘和内部配合。使用不同的口腔内扫描仪（Omnicam（CEREC），EZIS PO（DDS）和CS3500（Carestream））对基于ISO 12836：2015的实验模型进行数字扫描。使用每种系统推荐的CAD / CAM工艺（CEREC，EZIS和Carestream系统； N = 15）制造陶瓷冠。使用3D检查软件（Geomagic对照X）测量每个陶瓷冠的3维（3D）边缘和内部配合。使用Kruskal–Wallis检验评估了系统之间和各种测量之间的差异。使用成对比较（α= 0.05）验证了统计学上的显着差异。CEREC，EZIS，p <0.001）。轴向间隙分别为83.4、78.0和107.9 µm。边际间隙分别为77.8、99.3和60.6 µm，整个间隙分别为85.9、107.3和214.0 µm。与其他两个系统相比，EZIS系统在边际间隙大小方面存在显着差异。CEREC系统在四个测量区域之间没有显着差异。但是，EZIS和Carestream系统确实显示出统计学上的显着差异（p <0.05）。判定这三个系统均能够制造临床上可接受的假体，因为据记录，这三个系统中边缘间隙是假体边缘贴合的最重要因素，而边缘间隙小于100 µm。