Accuracy of three digital workflows for implant abutment and crown fabrication using a digital measuring technique

Zeller, Stephanie; Guichet, David L.; Kontogiorgos, Elias; Nagy, William W.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.026

Cited by 29 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The study was conducted with one sample to minimize production errors (e.g., study model, template, and coping) [52,53,54] and to only observe the differences between methods. In addition, the previous studies compared two methods [14,18,21,34,39,40], while this study compared the most possible methods used for assessing the fitness of the fixed prosthesis. Thus, through the results of our study, the differences in the result values based on the method could be compared.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have compared the accuracy of methods for analyzing the marginal and internal fit measurements of fixed prostheses [14,18,21,34,39,40]. However, since the objective of the previous studies was to increase the reliability of the assessment method, they only compared two methods to identify an appropriate approach, rather than comparing the various existing methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, the studies by Han et al [21], Boitelle et al [39], and Zeller et al [40] reported different findings even when comparing only two methods. Additionally, the findings from previous studies examining the various methods for measuring the marginal and internal fit of the prosthesis were difficult to compare due to the differences in the experimental condition in each study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comparison Study of Marginal and Internal Fit Assessment Methods for Fixed Dental Prostheses

Lee

Kang

et al. 2019

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have previously evaluated the marginal and internal fit of fixed prostheses; however, few reports have performed an objective comparison of the various methods used for their assessment. The purpose of this study was to compare five marginal and internal fit assessment methods for fixed prostheses. A specially designed sample was used to measure the marginal and internal fit of the prosthesis according to the cross-sectional method (CSM), silicone replica technique (SRT), triple scan method (TSM), micro-computed tomography (MCT), and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The five methods showed significant differences in the four regions that were assessed (p < 0.001). The marginal, axial, angle, and occlusal regions showed low mean values: CSM (23.2 µm), TSM (56.3 µm), MCT (84.3 µm), and MCT (102.6 µm), respectively. The marginal fit for each method was in the range of 23.2–83.4 µm and internal fit (axial, angle, and occlusal) ranged from 44.8–95.9 µm, 84.3–128.6 µm, and 102.6–140.5 µm, respectively. The marginal and internal fit showed significant differences depending on the method. Even if the assessment values of the marginal and internal fit are found to be in the allowable clinical range, the differences in the values according to the method should be considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison Study of Marginal and Internal Fit Assessment Methods for Fixed Dental Prostheses

Lee

Kang

et al. 2019

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been some studies about the biogeneric design techniques [1,11,13,16,18,22,24], which were focused on the comparison of occlusion surface rather than on the overall morphology of the crown. What's more, these studies used the 2D method to compare morphological differences, which is less objective than the results of 3D comparison.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 3D differences between two datasets can be analyzed by superimposing appropriate detection software. In most cases, these software programs use the "best fit algorithm" and "3D analysis" to compare 3D datasets [24]. In order to describe the accuracy of digital 3D model, the "trueness" and "precision" parameters are adopted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison and evaluation of the morphology of crowns generated by biogeneric design technique with CEREC chairside system

Fang

Tang

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To better guide clinicians to choose the appropriate chairside system, we compared and evaluated the morphology of crowns generated by three different biogeneric design modes (biogeneric copy (BC), biogeneric individual (BI), and biogeneric reference (BR)) of the CEREC software. Methods Maxillary and mandibular casts were obtained from twelve volunteers and digital impressions were acquired. All ceramic crown preparations of all right maxillary central incisors were prepared and digital impressions were taken. Then, crowns were automatically designed under BC, BI and BR modes separately and their morphologies were evaluated by six doctors. The "optimal fitting alignment" and "3D analysis" functions of the Geomagic Qualify software were carried out between original teeth and auto-generated full crowns. The auto-generated crowns were modified by a technician according to clinical criteria and the adjustment time was recorded. The discrepancies between technician modified crowns and the auto-generated full crowns were evaluated with the same functions in the Geomagic Qualify software. Results The subjective evaluation results of BC group were significantly better than those of BI and BR group (p < 0.05). Compared with the original teeth and modified crowns, auto-generated crowns in BC group all had the smallest differences, followed by BR and BI group (p < 0.05). BC group needed the shortest adjustment time than BI and BR group (p < 0.05).

show abstract

Clinical Applications of Digital Dental Technology in Implant Prosthodontics

Choi¹,

Driscoll²,

Kempler³

et al. 2022

Clinical Applications of Digital Dental Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of three digital workflows for implant abutment and crown fabrication using a digital measuring technique

Cited by 29 publications

References 19 publications

A Comparison Study of Marginal and Internal Fit Assessment Methods for Fixed Dental Prostheses

A Comparison Study of Marginal and Internal Fit Assessment Methods for Fixed Dental Prostheses

Comparison and evaluation of the morphology of crowns generated by biogeneric design technique with CEREC chairside system

Clinical Applications of Digital Dental Technology in Implant Prosthodontics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About