Introduction Determining the finish line on the master cast is essential to create proper restoration. We aimed to compare the finish line accuracy in casts created using the conventional technique, digital technique, and an alternative approach called the double‐colored die‐stone (DCDS) technique. Methods The tooth 24 in an upper jaw typodont was prepared with a chamfer finish line. Twenty impressions were taken from the typodont and were divided into conventional ( n = 10) and DCDS ( n = 10). Ten digital impressions were taken using an intraoral scanner, and a 3D printer made the digital cast. We applied a single‐color die‐stone in the conventional method, while we used two colors of die‐stone in the DCDS group. We assessed the finish lines, focusing on the area of valid distance, distance standard deviation, integrated absolute distance, and mean distance. A reference model was created to evaluate the area of valid distance across different techniques. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests. Results The area of valid distance was significantly higher in the DCDS group than in the digital group ( p < 0.001). The integrated absolute distance was notably greater in the digital group than in the conventional group ( p < 0.001). We revealed significant differences in the area of valid distance between the digital, conventional, and DCDS groups compared to the reference model ( p = 0.002, p = 0.002, and p = 0.011, respectively). However, the DCDS group demonstrated the closest alignment with the reference model. Conclusions This study suggests that the DCDS technique could offer an effective alternative to the conventional method. Clinical Significance The current study highlights the DCDS as a reliable alternative to conventional and digital methods, exhibiting acceptable precision in replicating the finish line. This technology enhances the visualization of the finish line, improving prosthetics’ fabrication process.
Toumaj et al. (Thu,) studied this question.