3D Scanning, Imaging, and Printing in Orthodontics

Taneva, Emilia; Kusnoto, Budi; Evans, Carla A.

doi:10.5772/60010

Cited by 73 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies conducted in an industrial application highlight the importance of recognizing the effects of RR&T when designing a 3D imaging sensor . For instance, if an IOS projects a microscopic grid of lasers onto a tooth surface, it will interpret the pattern reflected into the sensor and calculate the location of all data points of interest (POI) . Not only do different tissues of the teeth have varying RR&T, but natural dentin has been shown to have a varying refractivity index, depending on the orientation of tubules at the scan location .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20,21 For instance, if an IOS projects a microscopic grid of lasers onto a tooth surface, it will interpret the pattern reflected into the sensor and calculate the location of all data points of interest (POI). 14,22,23 Not only do different tissues of the teeth have varying RR&T, 24 but natural dentin has been shown to have a varying refractivity index, depending on the orientation of tubules at the scan location. 25 If an IOS system is not designed to take RR&T into consideration, light refraction differences between substrates could decrease scan accuracy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model

Bocklet

Renne

Mennito

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured Abstract Objective This study aimed to determine how the accuracy of digital impressions was affected by four common dental substrates using seven prevalent IOS systems to scan the complete arch of a human maxilla. Setting and Sample Population The Department of Oral Rehabilitation at the Medical University of South Carolina. A single cadaver maxilla. Materials and Methods Seven digital intraoral impression systems were used to scan a freshly harvested human maxilla. The maxilla contained several teeth restored with amalgam and composite, as well as unrestored teeth characterized by enamel. Also, three teeth were prepared for full coverage restorations to expose natural dentin. An industrial grade metrology software program that allowed 3D overlay and dimensional computation compared deviations of the complete arch and its substrates on the test model from the reference model. Results Substrates were significantly different from each other when considering scan data as a whole, as well as when comparing IOS devices individually. Only PlanScan failed to reveal trueness differences between the different substrates, while only Emerald revealed precision differences between the substrates. Conclusions Substrate type does impact the overall accuracy of intraoral scans with dentin being the most accurate and enamel being the least accurate. The four substrates scanned impacted the trueness of all IOS devices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model

Bocklet

Renne

Mennito

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19,20 As a pattern of light is projected from the scanner onto a surface, only light reflected back into the sensor can be used to calculate the location of all data points of interest (POI). [21][22][23] The different tissues of the teeth and dental materials have different RR&T. 24,25 If an IOS system is not designed to take RR&T into consideration, then light refraction differences between substrates could decrease scanning accuracy. Hong Li et al found that scanners were less accurate when scanning more translucent substrates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners

Dutton

Ludlow

Mennito

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This in vitro study compares the newest generation of intraoral scanners to their older counterparts, and tests whether material substrates affect the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOS). Material and methods A custom model, used as the reference standard, was fabricated with teeth composed of different dental materials. The reference standard scan was obtained using a three‐dimensional (3D) optical scanner, the ATOS III. Experimental scans were obtained using eight different IOS, operated by experienced clinicians, using the manufacturer's recommended scanning strategy. A comprehensive metrology program, Geomagic Control X, was used to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. Results For all scanners tested, except Trios3, the substrate does influence the trueness and precision of the scan. Furthermore, differences exist when comparing the same substrate across different scanners with some of the latest generation scanners clearly leaping ahead of the older generation regarding both trueness and precision. Conclusions Substrate type affects the trueness and precision of a scan. Active Triangulation scanners are more sensitive to substrate differences than their parallel confocal counterparts. Some scanners scan certain substrates better, but in general the new generation of scanners outperforms the old, across all substrates. Clinical significance The substrates being scanned play an import role in the trueness and precision of the 3D model. The new generation of scanners is remarkably accurate across all substrates and for complete‐arch scanning.

show abstract

“…This manufacturing method, vacuum foaming, is a handmade procedure that foam material is manually applied on a mold . Unlike the manual vacuum foaming approach, 3D insole models, obtained by means of a contact or non‐contact 3D scanner, are utilized in a computer controlled milling system, also known as digital manufacturing, in subtractive method to form the target medical equipment, that is, another insole manufacturing method and widely used by medical stores . In this method, a 3D scanner is used to obtain 3D model of the foot.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Additive manufacturing and biomechanical validation of a patient‐specific diabetic insole

Peker

Aydin

Küçük

et al. 2020

Polymers for Advanced Techs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that lower extremity amputation (LEA) rate of per 1000 diabetic patients is 18.4 because of the complications that first appeared in the foot. A second amputation is also required for 9% to 17% of these patients within the same year although LEA may be preventable. Most of the diabetic foot conditions may be prevented and treated by a therapeutic footwear or a medical device such as an insole or an orthotic shoe. Traditional insole manufacturing is a laborious work that requires specific skills. Moreover, traditional approaches contain harmful material particles that may cause respiratory failure.Unfortunately, manufactured insoles may not be suitable for any mass-produced footwear in all cases. Therefore, patient requires to get insole-specific footwear. In this study, a diabetic insole was manufactured by means of a fused deposition modeling-(FDM) based system and a thermoplastic polymer. Biomechanical functionality was determined according to the applied polymer analysis on each produced sample and foam material. Subsequently, finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to target insole geometry to ensure the quality of the final medical product. Additive and traditional manufactured insoles are compared according to the cost and function. As a result, fabrication of an insole, based on the FDM method, was improved down to 8 h and 9 m. The weight of an insole prototype was 74.74 g, and the material cost was $3.44 while total cost of the traditional foam casting was determined as $35.37 and weight of the insole was 72.6 g for this study. Consequently, benefits of the applied method are evaluated. K E Y W O R D S additive manufacturing, biomechanical functionality, diabetes, finite element analysis, insole, patient-specific

show abstract

3D Scanning, Imaging, and Printing in Orthodontics

Cited by 73 publications

References 71 publications

Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model

Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model

The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners

Additive manufacturing and biomechanical validation of a patient‐specific diabetic insole

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About