Reliability of light microscopy and a computer-assisted replica measurement technique for evaluating the fit of dental copings

Abstract

Abstract The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the reliability of two measurement systems for evaluating the marginal and internal fit of dental copings. Material and Methods: Sixteen CAD/CAM titanium copings were produced for a prepared maxillary canine. To modify the CAD surface model using different parameters (data density; enlargement in different directions), varying fit was created. Five light-body silicone replicas representing the gap between the canine and the coping were made for each coping and for each measurement method: (1) light microscopy measurements (LMMs); and (2) computer-assisted measurements (CASMs) using an optical digitizing system. Two investigators independently measured the marginal and internal fit using both methods. The inter-rater reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)] and agreement [Bland-Altman (bias) analyses]: mean of the differences (bias) between two measurements [the closer to zero the mean (bias) is, the higher the agreement between the two measurements] were calculated for several measurement points (marginal-distal, marginal-buccal, axial-buccal, incisal). For the LMM technique, one investigator repeated the measurements to determine repeatability (intra-rater reliability and agreement). Results: For inter-rater reliability, the ICC was 0.848-0.998 for LMMs and 0.945-0.999 for CASMs, depending on the measurement point. Bland-Altman bias was −15.7 to 3.5 μm for LMMs and −3.0 to 1.9 μm for CASMs. For LMMs, the marginal-distal and marginal-buccal measurement points showed the lowest ICC (0.848/0.978) and the highest bias (-15.7 μm/-7.6 μm). With the intra-rater reliability and agreement (repeatability) for LMMs, the ICC was 0.970-0.998 and bias was −1.3 to 2.3 μm. Conclusion: LMMs showed lower interrater reliability and agreement at the marginal measurement points than CASMs, which indicates a more subjective influence with LMMs at these measurement points. The values, however, were still clinically acceptable. LMMs showed very high intra-rater reliability and agreement for all measurement points, indicating high repeatability.