Purpose: To evaluate the trueness of digital impressions of different composite resin materials that can be used for core buildups in clinical practice.
Materials and Methods: A maxillary central incisor was prepared and scanned with an intraoral scanner (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona). Ten composite resin specimens (in three groups: universal composite; flowable composite; and bulk fill composite) were milled in the same dimensions of the prepared tooth and scanned. The data of the prepared tooth were used as reference, and the data obtained from the composite resin specimens were aligned using an evaluation software (Geomagic Studio 12) to determine deviation values. Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn post hoc test was performed to compare differences among the composite resin groups (α = .05).
Results: There were significant differences in the trueness of digital impressions between some composite resin groups (P < .05). The mean trueness deviation values were in the range of 12.75 μm (G-aenial Posterior) to 17.06 μm (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior). The trueness of G-aenial Posterior (12.75 μm) was higher than that of Core-X Flow (14.62 μm), Clearfil Majesty Flow (16.93 μm), and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (17.06 μm). Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior exhibited lower trueness than Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (12.93 μm), Clearfil Majesty Posterior (13.50 μm), and Charisma Classic (13.81 μm).
Conclusion: Different composite resins used for core buildup can impact the trueness of digital impressions, with universal composite resin scans being the truest compared to flowable and bulk fill composite resin scans. All scanned substrate groups can be regarded as within a clinically acceptable range.