No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the digitizing of silicon rubber impressions of abutment teeth by using a white light scanner and compare differences in repeatability between different abutment teeth types.MATERIALS AND METHODSSilicon rubber impressions of a canine, premolar, and molar tooth were each digitized 8 times using a white light scanner, and 3D surface models were created using the point clouds. The size of any discrepancy between each model and the corresponding reference tooth were measured, and the distribution of these values was analyzed by an inspection software (PowerInspect 2012, Delcamplc., Birmingham, UK). Absolute values of discrepancies were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple comparisons (α=.05).RESULTSThe discrepancy between the impressions for the canine, premolar, and molar teeth were 6.3 µm (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.2), 6.4 µm (95% CI, 5.3-7.6), and 8.9 µm (95% CI, 8.2-9.5), respectively. The discrepancy of the molar tooth impression was significantly higher than that of other tooth types. The largest variation (as mean [SD]) in discrepancies was seen in the premolar tooth impression scans: 26.7 µm (95% CI, 19.7-33.8); followed by canine and molar teeth impressions, 16.3 µm (95% CI, 15.3-17.3), and 14.0 µm (95% CI, 12.3-15.7), respectively.CONCLUSIONThe repeatability of the digitizing abutment teeth's silicon rubber impressions by using a white light scanner was improved compared to that with a laser scanner, showing only a low mean discrepancy between 6.3 µm and 8.9 µm, which was in an clinically acceptable range. Premolar impression with a long and narrow shape showed a significantly larger discrepancy than canine and molar impressions. Further work is needed to increase the digitizing performance of the white light scanner for deep and slender impressions.

PURPOSEThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digitizing dental impressions of abutment teeth using a white light scanner and to compare the findings among teeth types.MATERIALS AND METHODSTo assess precision, impressions of the canine, premolar, and molar prepared to receive all-ceramic crowns were repeatedly scanned to obtain five sets of 3-D data (STL files). Point clouds were compared and error sizes were measured (n=10 per type). Next, to evaluate trueness, impressions of teeth were rotated by 10°-20° and scanned. The obtained data were compared with the first set of data for precision assessment, and the error sizes were measured (n=5 per type). The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to evaluate precision and trueness among three teeth types, and post-hoc comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (α=.05).RESULTSPrecision discrepancies for the canine, premolar, and molar were 3.7 µm, 3.2 µm, and 7.3 µm, respectively, indicating the poorest precision for the molar (P<.001). Trueness discrepancies for teeth types were 6.2 µm, 11.2 µm, and 21.8 µm, respectively, indicating the poorest trueness for the molar (P=.007).CONCLUSIONIn respect to accuracy the molar showed the largest discrepancies compared with the canine and premolar. Digitizing of dental impressions of abutment teeth using a white light scanner was assessed to be a highly accurate method and provided discrepancy values in a clinically acceptable range. Further study is needed to improve digitizing performance of white light scanning in axial wall.

In this study, we evaluated the repeatability of scans of stone models and impressions of abutment teeth using a blue LED scanner and compared the findings between different abutment teeth types. For the stone models as well as impression of the canines, premolars, and molars, we generated 10 color-difference-maps and reports for each tooth type (n=10 per tooth type). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent t-tests were performed to evaluate the repeatability of scans of the stone models and impressions obtained from a blue LED scanner. Our results indicate a high repeatability of scans of stone models and impressions of abutment teeth using the blue LED scanner and suggest a possible clinical advantage for scanning impressions of different abutment teeth types.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of the interocclusal relationship between upper and lower teeth according to the buccal interocclusal record scan using various intraoral scanner systems. Materials and Methods: The upper and lower full arch Models with normal occlusion were scanned with 5 intraoral scanners (Cerec Omnicam, CS3500, iTero, Trios, True Definition). Buccal interocclusal record scan was taken only at the left side while occlusion was intentionally raised by 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm with metal cylinder core embedded within polyvinylsiloxane bite registration material at the right molar region. The superimposition analysis was done to evaluate overall three-dimensional deviation and cross-section analysis was done to evaluate the degree and the direction of deviation of interocclusal relationship. Results: From the superimposition study, Cerec Omnicam showed the least deviation (165.5 μm) and CS3500 (369.0 μm) showed the largest (P < 0.01). And the deviation was greater in 3, 4, 2 mm group than 1 mm (P < 0.01). From the cross-section study, Cerec Omnicam showed the farthest deviation (-242.8 μm) and CS3500 showed the closest deviation (312.5 μm) and a significantly high value was shown in 3 mm group. Conclusion: Every intraoral scanner has different accuracy in reproducing interocclusal relationship.