Document Type




Format of Original

6 p.

Publication Date




Source Publication

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Source ISSN



Statement of problem

Little peer-reviewed information is available regarding the accuracy and reproducibility of digitally fabricated casts compared to conventional nondigital methods.


The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of a digital impression and cast fabrication with a conventional impression and cast fabrication.

Material and methods

Conventional impressions were made via a 1-step single viscosity technique with vinyl siloxanether material of a typodont master model, and conventional casts were cast from dental stone. Digital impressions were obtained with a digital scanner, and digital stereolithographic models were printed. The typodont and fabricated casts were digitized with a structured light scanner and saved in surface tessellation language (STL) format. All STL records were superimposed via a best-fit method. The digital impression and cast fabrication method was compared with the conventional impression and cast fabrication method for discrepancy, accuracy, and reproducibility. The Levene test was used to determine equality of variances, and a 1-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the overall statistical significance of differences among the groups (n=5, α=.05).


No significant statistical difference was found between the digital cast and conventional casts in the internal area or finish line area (P>.05). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between these 2 techniques for a fixed dental prosthesis or single crown (P>.05). However, statistically significant differences were observed for overall areas of the casts in terms of accuracy (PP


No statistically significant difference was found between the digital cast and conventional cast groups in the internal and finish line areas. However, in terms of the reproducibility and accuracy of the entire cast area, the conventional cast was significantly better than the digital cast.


Accepted version. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 113, No. 4 (April, 2015): 310-315. DOI. © 2015 Elsevier. Used with permission.

NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, VOL 113, ISSUE 4, April 2015. DOI.

Included in

Dentistry Commons