Statement of problem: Knowledge of the fabrication trueness and margin quality of additively manufactured (AM) laminate veneers (LVs) when different intraoral scanners (IOSs) and finish line locations are used is limited.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fabrication trueness and margin quality of AM LVs with different finish line locations digitized by using different IOSs.

Material and methods: An LV preparation with a subgingival (sub), equigingival (equi), or supragingival (supra) finish line was performed on 3 identical maxillary right central incisor typodont teeth. Each preparation was digitized by using 2 IOSs, (CEREC Primescan [PS] and TRIOS 3 [TS]), and a reference LV for each finish line-IOS pair (n=6) was designed. A total of 90 LVs were fabricated by using these files and urethane acrylate-based definitive resin (Tera Harz TC-80DP) (n=15). Each LV was then digitized by using PS to evaluate fabrication trueness (overall, external, intaglio, and marginal surfaces). Each LV was also qualitatively evaluated under a stereomicroscope (×60), and the cervical and incisal margin quality was graded. Fabrication trueness and cervical margin quality were evaluated by using 2-way analysis of variance, while Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney-U tests were used to evaluate incisal margin quality (α=.05).

Results: The interaction between the IOS type and the finish line location affected measured deviations at each surface (P≤.020). PS-sub and TS-supra had higher overall trueness than their counterparts. and the subgingival finish line resulted in the lowest trueness (P≤.005). PS and the subgingival finish line led to the lowest trueness of the external surface (P≤.001). TS-sub had the lowest intaglio surface trueness among the TS subgroups, and PS-sub had higher trueness than TS-sub (P<.001). PS-sub and PS-supra had higher marginal surface trueness than their TS counterparts (P<.001). TS resulted in higher cervical margin quality (P=.001).

Conclusions: Regardless of the IOS tested, subgingival finish lines resulted in the lowest trueness. The effect of IOS on the measured deviations varied according to the surface evaluated and finish line location. The cervical margin quality of AM LVs was higher when TS was used.