Comparison and evaluation of the morphology of crowns generated by biogeneric design technique with CEREC chairside system

Autoři: Fang Wang aff001;  Qingqing Tang aff002;  Shuang Xi aff002;  Ruirui Liu aff001;  Lin Niu aff001
Působiště autorů: Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, College of Stomatology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China aff001;  Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, College of Stomatology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227050



To better guide clinicians to choose the appropriate chairside system, we compared and evaluated the morphology of crowns generated by three different biogeneric design modes (biogeneric copy (BC), biogeneric individual (BI), and biogeneric reference (BR)) of the CEREC software.


Maxillary and mandibular casts were obtained from twelve volunteers and digital impressions were acquired. All ceramic crown preparations of all right maxillary central incisors were prepared and digital impressions were taken. Then, crowns were automatically designed under BC, BI and BR modes separately and their morphologies were evaluated by six doctors. The “optimal fitting alignment” and “3D analysis” functions of the Geomagic Qualify software were carried out between original teeth and auto-generated full crowns. The auto-generated crowns were modified by a technician according to clinical criteria and the adjustment time was recorded. The discrepancies between technician modified crowns and the auto-generated full crowns were evaluated with the same functions in the Geomagic Qualify software.


The subjective evaluation results of BC group were significantly better than those of BI and BR group (p < 0.05). Compared with the original teeth and modified crowns, auto-generated crowns in BC group all had the smallest differences, followed by BR and BI group (p < 0.05). BC group needed the shortest adjustment time than BI and BR group (p < 0.05).


Using crowns generated by BC mode is more aesthetic and suitable in clinics use than those generated by BI and BR modes and can reduce clinic adjustment time.

Klíčová slova:

Algorithms – Computer software – Dentition – Incisors – Prosthetics – Software design – Teeth – Technicians


1. Zhang R, Ding Q, Sun Y, Zhang L, Xie Q. Assessment of CAD-CAM zirconia crowns designed with 2 different methods: A self-controlled clinical trial.J Prosthet Dent.2018;120(5):686–692. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.027 29807740

2. Mehl A, Blanz V, Hickel R. Biogeneric tooth: a new mathematical representation for tooth morphology in lower first molars.Eur J Oral Sci.2005;113(4):333–340. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00224.x 16048526

3. Baroudi K, Ibraheem SN. Assessment of Chair-side Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing Restorations: A Review of the Literature.J Int Oral Health.2015;7(4):96–104. 25954082

4. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing.Clin Oral Investig.2013;17(4):1201–1208. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0 22847854

5. Sannino G, Germano F, Arcuri L, Bigelli E, Arcuri C, Barlattani A. CEREC CAD/CAM Chairside System.Oral Implantol (Rome).2014;7(3):57–70.

6. Giordano R. Materials for chairside CAD/CAM-produced restorations.J Am Dent Assoc.2006;137(1939):14–21.

7. Zeghbroeck LV. CAD/CAM treatment for the elderly—a case report. Gerodontology.2012;29(2):1176–1179.

8. Trost L, Stines S, Burt L. Making informed decisions about incorporating a CAD/CAM system into dental practice.J Am Dent Assoc.2006;137(1939):32–36.

9. Fasbinder DJ. Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM restorations.J Am Dent Assoc.2006;137(1939):22–31.

10. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations.Br Dent J.2008;204(9):505–511. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350 18469768

11. Akgungor G, Sen D, Bal E, Ozcan M. Simultaneous Replacement of Maxillary Central Incisors with CEREC Biogeneric Reference Technique: A Case Report.J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects.2013;7(2):112–118. doi: 10.5681/joddd.2013.020 23875091

12. Zhao YJ, Wang Y.Understanding chair-side digital technology for stomatology from an engineering viewpoint.Chin J Stomatol.2018;53(4):230–235.

13. Ender A, Mormann WH, Mehl A. Efficiency of a mathematical model in generating CAD/CAM-partial crowns with natural tooth morphology.Clin Oral Investig.2011;15(2):283–289. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0384-z 20143242

14. Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials.J Dent.2004;32(2):91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2003.08.006 14749080

15. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Hickel R, Kuhnisch J. Chairside treatment of amelogenesis imperfecta, including establishment of a new vertical dimension with resin nanoceramic and intraoral scanning.J Prosthet Dent.2016;116(3):309–313. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.010 27112411

16. Kollmuss M, Jakob FM, Kirchner HG, Ilie N, Hickel R, Huth KC. Comparison of biogenerically reconstructed and waxed-up complete occlusal surfaces with respect to the original tooth morphology.Clin Oral Investig.2013;17(3):851–857. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0749-6 22580927

17. Kollmuss M, Kist S, Goeke JE, Hickel R, Huth KC. Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics.Clin Oral Investig.2016;20(4):791–797. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1554-9 26245275

18. Arslan Y, Nemli SK, Gungor MB, Tamam E, Yilmaz H. Evaluation of biogeneric design techniques with CEREC CAD/CAM system.J Adv Prosthodont.2015;7(6):431–436. doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.431 26816572

19. Snow SR. Esthetic smile analysis of maxillary anterior tooth width: the golden percentage.J Esthet Dent.1999;11(4):177–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00397.x 10825874

20. Ashtiani RE, Khanlar LN, Mahshid M, Moshaverinia A 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 28578984

21. Mehl A, Blanz V, Hickel R. A new mathematical process for the calculation of average forms of teeth.J Prosthet Dent.2005;94(6):561–566. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.10.002 16316803

22. Litzenburger AP, Hickel R, Richter MJ, Mehl AC, Probst FA. Fully automatic CAD design of the occlusal morphology of partial crowns compared to dental technicians' design.Clin Oral Investig.2013;17(2):491–496. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0714-4 22451342

23. Akgungor G, Kilincaslan N, Şen D. Anterior Single Laminate Veneer Restoration Using CEREC Biogeneric Reference Design Mode: Case Report.Key Eng Mater.(2011);493–494:599–603.

24. Zeller S, Guichet D, Kontogiorgos E, Nagy WW. Accuracy of three digital workflows for implant abutment and crown fabrication using a digital measuring technique.J Prosthet Dent.2019;121(2):276–284. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.026 30396709

25. Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.Clin Oral Investig.2017;21(5):1445–1455. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4 27406138

26. Turp JC, Greene CS, Strub JR. Dental occlusion: a critical reflection on past, present and future concepts.J Oral Rehabil.2008;35(6):446–453. doi: 10.1111/j.0305-182X.2007.01820.x 18284561

27. Cunha LF, Gonzaga CC, Pissaia JF, Correr GM. Lithium silicate endocrown fabricated with a CAD-CAM system: A functional and esthetic protocol.J Prosthet Dent.2017;118(2):131–134. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.006 28089332

28. Vervoorn-Vis GM, Wetselaar P, Koutris M, Visscher CM, Evalahti M, Ahlberg J, Lobbezoo F. Assessment of the progression of tooth wear on dental casts. J Oral Rehabil.2015;42(8):600–604. doi: 10.1111/joor.12292 25752246

29. Oancea L, Stegaroiu R, Cristache CM. The influence of temporomandibular joint movement parameters on dental morphology.Ann Anat.2018;218:49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2018.02.013 29625251

30. Kerdani TEl, Nimmo A. Integrating conventional and CAD/CAM digital techniques for establishing canine protected articulation: A clinical report.J Prosthet Dent.2016;115(5):515–519. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.028 26774319

31. Reich SM, Peltz ID, Wichmann M, Estafan DJ. A comparative study of two CEREC software systems in evaluating manufacturing time and accuracy of restorations.Gen Dent.2005;53(3):195–198. 15960477

32. Wurbs M, Simon JF, Troeltzsch M, Denekas T, Wichmann M, Reich S. Dentist-time expenditure for two different adhesive all-ceramic systems.J Dent.2006;34(7):450–453. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.09.005 16310303

33. Steinhauser-Andresen S, Detterbeck A, Funk C, Krumm M, Kasperl S, Holst A, Hirschfelder U. Pilot study on accuracy and dimensional stability of impression materials using industrial CT technology.J Orofac Orthop.2011;72(2):111–124. doi: 10.1007/s00056-011-0015-6 21503851

34. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera.Int J Comput Dent.2009;12(1):11–28. 19213357

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1