Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations

Beuer, Florian; Schweiger, Josef; Edelhoff, Daniel

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350

Cited by 742 publications

(652 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

560

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3,21 The past 30 years have seen the development of the digital intraoral impression technique. 6,10,[27][28][29] This method replicates the intraoral situation using a 3-dimensional (3D) camera to capture the data in a digital format. Restorations can then be directly produced by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software and computer numerical control (CNC) milling machines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

Ender

Attin

Mehl

2016

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

412

437

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Digital impression systems have undergone significant development in recent years, but few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo, particularly compared with conventional impression techniques. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vivo study was to investigate the precision of conventional and digital methods for complete-arch impressions. MA-TERIAL AND METHODS: Complete-arch impressions were obtained using 5 conventional (polyether, POE; vinylsiloxanether, VSE; direct scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES; digitized scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES-D; and irreversible hydrocolloid, ALG) and 7 digital (CEREC Bluecam, CER; CEREC Omnicam, OC; Cadent iTero, ITE; Lava COS, LAV; Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; 3Shape Trios, TRI; and 3Shape Trios Color, TRC) techniques. Impressions were made 3 times each in 5 participants (n=15). The impressions were then compared within and between the test groups. The cast surfaces were measured point-to-point using the signed nearest neighbor method. Precision was calculated from the (90%-10%)/2 percentile value. RESULTS: The precision ranged from 12.3 m (VSE) to 167.2 m (ALG), with the highest precision in the VSE and VSES groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly according to the impression method. Conventional impressions showed the highest accuracy across the complete dental arch in all groups, except for the ALG group. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the complete arch cast; however, they achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials. techniques. Impressions were made 3 times each in 5 participants (n = 15). The impressions were then compared within and between the test groups. The cast surfaces were measured point-to-point using the signed nearest neighbor method. Precision was calculated from the (90%-10%)/2 percentile value.Results. The precision ranged from 12.3 µm (VSE) to 167.2 µm (ALG), with the highest precision in the VSE and VSES groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly according to the impression method. Conventional impressions showed the highest accuracy across the complete dental arch in all groups, except for the ALG group.Conclusions. Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the 2 complete arch cast; however, they achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONSThe accuracy of complete-arch impression casts differs significantly between conventional techniques and digital impression systems. Local deviations are greater in casts generated using digital impression systems; however, digital systems show adequate accuracy across the complete arch. As digital impression systems continue to improve, they may prove to be an equivalent or better alternative to convent...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

Ender

Attin

Mehl

2016

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

412

437

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After milling, the dental technician finishes the restoration at the gypsum model. The latest development in CAD/CAM dentistry is the digital intraoral impression (DI) (Fasbinder, 2010) (Beuer, Schweiger, & Edelhoff, 2008). The digital intraoral impression(DI) results in a threedimensional virtual model from scanning the patients teeth directly inside the mouth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision

Ender

Mehl

2013

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

491

429

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A new approach to both 3-dimensional (3D) trueness and precision is necessary to assess the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions and compare them to conventionally acquired impressions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate whether a new reference scanner is capable of measuring conventional and digital intraoral complete-arch impressions for 3D accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A steel reference dentate model was fabricated and measured with a reference scanner (digital reference model). Conventional impressions were made from the reference model, poured with Type IV dental stone, scanned with the reference scanner, and exported as digital models. Additionally, digital impressions of the reference model were made and the digital models were exported. Precision was measured by superimposing the digital models within each group. Superimposing the digital models on the digital reference model assessed the trueness of each impression method. Statistical significance was assessed with an independent sample t test (=.05). RE-SULTS: The reference scanner delivered high accuracy over the entire dental arch with a precision of 1.6 ±0.6 µm and a trueness of 5.3 ±1.1 µm. Conventional impressions showed significantly higher precision (12.5 ±2.5 µm) and trueness values (20.4 ±2.2 µm) with small deviations in the second molar region (P<.001). Digital impressions were significantly less accurate with a precision of 32.4 ±9.6 µm and a trueness of 58.6 ±15.8µm (P<.001). More systematic deviations of the digital models were visible across the entire dental arch. CONCLUSIONS: The new reference scanner is capable of measuring the precision and trueness of both digital and conventional complete-arch impressions. The digital impression is less accurate and shows a different pattern of deviation than the conventional impression. Methods: A steel reference model was scanned with the reference scanner to evaluate precision and trueness. The reference model then was used to perform five conventional impressions with a polyvinylsiloxanether material (Identium, Kettenbach) in a putty and wash technique with standard stock trays (ASA Permalock, ASA Dental). The conventional impressions were poured with Type IV stone (CamBase, Dentona) and scanned with the reference scanner. Five digital impressions with a optical intraoral scanning system (CEREC AC, Sirona) were made. In each group, the models were superimposed and the differences computed with a signed nearest neighbour method. The 90-10%/2 percentile of the differences from each comparison was taken to compute the mean value for precision. The trueness of each impression method was assessed through superimposition of the impressions with the refefence scan of the steel reference model. Results:The reference scanner delivers an accuracy with 1.6±0.6 µm for precision and 5.3±1.1 µm for trueness over a full dental arch scan. The conventional impression method shows significant higher (p<0.001) precision (12.5±2.5 µm) and trueness (20....

show abstract

“…Three-axis devices, four-axis devices, and five-axis devices enable the milling of complex geometries with subsections. 13 …”

Section: Milling In Cad/cammentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some manufacturers also offer the option of milling resin material in a dry milling process [Zeno 4030 (Wieland-Imes), Lava Form and Cercon brain]. 13 …”

Section: Dry Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the Software and Hardware in CAD/CAM Systems used in Dentistry

Zarina¹,

Jaini²,

Raj³

2017

IJPCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems were introduced into dentistry in 1970s. This technology has evolved rapidly that, starting from a single crown to full mouth, rehabilitation is possible in a single day now. This article reviews the history, evolution, components, and various materials used for fabrication of prosthesis. It also evaluates popular CAD/CAM systems, its limitations, future evolvement, and also the dental considerations while using them.

show abstract

Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations

Cited by 742 publications

References 24 publications

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision

Evolution of the Software and Hardware in CAD/CAM Systems used in Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About