Advantages and drawbacks of different methods to measure marginal gaps in fixed dental prostheses: A scoping review

• Published in: Journal of dentistry 2024-12, Vol.151, p.105400, Article 105400
• Main Authors: Ayres, A.P., Cuschieri, L.A., Bianchi, D.M., Pradíes, G., Côrtes, A.R.G.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: CAD/CAM; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental prostheses; Dental Prosthesis; Dental Prosthesis Design - methods; Dental restorations; Dental technique; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans; Marginal fit; Measuring methods; Prosthodontics; Tomography, Optical Coherence - methods; X-Ray Microtomography - methods
• ISSN: 0300-5712; 1879-176X; 1879-176X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105400

This review aimed to compare traditional and digital methods to assess marginal gaps in fixed dental prostheses. Each method's characteristics, advantages, and limitations were identified and discussed, also addressing the knowledge gaps in the current scientific literature. Studies comparing currently available techniques for marginal gap examination were investigated. The main techniques analyzed were the Cross-Sectional Method (CSM), Direct View (DV), Silicone Replica Technique (SRT), Dual-Scan Method (DSM), Triple-Scan Method (TSM), Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), and Micro-Computed Tomography (MCT). Two experienced independent reviewers screened online databases (MEDLINE via PubMed and Scopus) to identify studies published in English up to March 2024. References from primary studies and the main peer-reviewed scientific journals were manually searched. From an initial pool of 8126 articles, the reviewers meticulously selected 25 in vitro studies on objective comparisons between two or more methods for assessing marginal gaps in fixed dental prostheses on natural teeth. Publications that assessed marginal gaps in implant-supported fixed dental prostheses were excluded. This study highlights that while traditional methods like CSM and SRT are widely used and validated, they have limitations in comprehensive gap assessment, often neglecting recommended measurement points. The DV technique, focusing solely on external gaps, may be less relevant for modern assessments. Conversely, three-dimensional techniques like TSM, DSM, OCT, and MCT offer a more thorough evaluation of dental restoration fit. Moreover, digital methods such as TSM and DSM have a significant potential for future clinical application. This review examined methods for evaluating marginal gaps in fixed dental prostheses. The review aids dental professionals and researchers in choosing the most suitable technique for clinical in vivo or laboratory assessment of the marginal adaptation of dental restorations. This study also indicates the need for an established and standardized assessment protocol for the marginal fit.