Fabrication of a 3-dimensionally printed definitive cast for an obturator prosthesis by merging intraoral scan image with cone beam computed tomography data: A clinical report

Murat, Sema; Batak, Burcu

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.031

Cited by 8 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there were only two in vitro studies that evaluated accuracy, both demonstrating clinically acceptable deviations. 18,19 Given most of the reviewed articles were clinical reports, [22][23][24][25]27,30 the obtained data should be carefully interpreted due to their methodological limitations. The data reviewed in this study showed that a vast majority of digitized maxillectomy defects are dentate with limited craniofacial affectation, which might indicate a preference toward dentate cases.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Indeed, five articles described the combination of systems for digital data acquisition. 21,[23][24][25][26] Although this methodology is reliable for implementing the digital workflow, there is presently insufficient clinical data to evaluate the accuracy of digital planning when IO scanners are incorporated into a CBCT or CT scan for maxillectomy defects. 21 Moreover, considering the obtained data acquisition results related to CAD/CAM processing, a major challenge seems to be obtaining an accurate scan of the obturator hollow bulb and the border areas related to muscle movements around the defects before the design and fabrication of the prosthesis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[27][28][29] The addition of CBCT or CT has been revealed as a useful combination tool for the data acquisition necessary for the design and fabrication of prostheses. 21,[23][24][25][26] Although CBCT or CT data in combination with intraoral scanning enables the evaluation of the vertical and/or horizontal defect to obtain 3D models,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CBCT and CT are methods that have been used with IO scanners. 21,[23][24][25][26] Ye et al reported that 3D digital casts of maxillary defects can be successfully generated from spiral CTs and intraoral scanners with a high level of accuracy consistent with that of conventional stone casts. 21 Combining conventional impressions with intraoral scanning has also been documented to overcome such limitations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to digitize maxillectomy defects for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review

Elbashti¹,

Molinero‐Mourelle²,

Aggarwal³

et al. 2022

Int J Maxillofac Prosthetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Few studies have focused on the feasibility and accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for maxillectomy defects, especially for extensive soft tissue defects. Using intraoral scanners alone might be feasible for producing maxillary obturator prostheses, albeit with some limitations. It seems logical to investigate this ambiguity. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to assessing the feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners (IOSs) to digitize maxillectomy defects. Materials and Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, and five prosthodontics journals were manually searched for English-language articles published as of December 2020 that assessed the feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to acquire digital impressions for maxillectomy defects. Results: Two in vitro studies, three clinical studies, six clinical reports, and three techniques were included (N=14). Aramany’s and Brown’s classifications were used to classify defects in twelve and one articles, respectively; the remaining article did not specify defect class. The 3M True definition IOS with Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), Computed tomography (CT), and/or optical scanners were used in both in vitro studies, mainly to evaluate accuracy. The Trios 3 scanner was used in nine studies as the main resource for data acquisition (75.0%), whereas the Trophy 3DI, Lava, and Cerec Omnicam scanners were used in three articles (25.0%). Four degrees of feasibility were identified: feasible (14.3%), feasible with limitations (28.6%), feasible with CBCT or CT (35.7%), and feasible with conventional impressions (21.4%). Accuracy was evaluated in four studies but was not mentioned in ten studies. Conclusion: The results revealed a low level of evidence for the feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to digitize maxillectomy defects. Additional multicenter clinical studies are needed to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of digital workflow compared with the conventional approach.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to digitize maxillectomy defects for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review

Elbashti¹,

Molinero‐Mourelle²,

Aggarwal³

et al. 2022

Int J Maxillofac Prosthetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intraoral scanners have the advantage of being able to obtain virtual casts directly from the patient's mouth without any additional work process, which is an essential element of a chairside CAD/CAM system [6,7]. Intraoral scanners can produce 3D models and scan oral and dental soft tissues quickly and easily, and can be visualized using 3D modeling, making communication between dentists and dental technicians and patients clearer [8]. If it is difficult to use an intraoral scanner in a given dental clinic due to various oral conditions, a digital workflow is possible through partially digital workflows (the process of obtaining a virtual cast by taking an oral impression, producing a working model, and using a laboratory scanner) [9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Based on the Type of Tooth Preparation for a Single Crown

Lee

2021

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in 10 abutments (five premolars and five molars) obtained in a dental clinic and to analyze the impacts of the volume and area of abutments on scanning accuracy. Abutment casts were scanned five times with a 3D contact scanner (DS10; Renishaw plc). The five scan files were lined up and then merged, and one high-resolution computer-aided design reference model (CRM) was obtained. To obtain a computer-aided design test model (CTM), three types of intraoral scanners (CS3600 (Carestream Dental), i500 (Medit), and EZIS PO (DDS)) and one type of laboratory scanner (E1; 3Shape) were employed. Using 3D analysis software (Geomagic control X; 3D Systems), the accuracy of the scanners was evaluated, including optimal overlap by optimal alignment. The conformity of the overlapped data was calculated by the root mean square (RMS) value, using the 3D compare function for evaluation. As for statistical analysis, testing was conducted, using one-way and two-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05) for the comparison of the groups. To analyze the correlations of the volume and area of the abutments with accuracy, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted (α = 0.00625). Both premolar and molar abutments showed a lower RMS value on the laboratory scanner than on the intraoral scanners, and the RMS value was lower in premolars than in molars (p < 0.001). In the intraoral scanner group, CS3600 showed the best accuracy (p < 0.001). There were significant positive correlations for the volume and area of the abutments with accuracy (p < 0.001). The type, volume, and area of the clinically applicable abutments may affect the accuracy of intraoral scanners; however, the scanners used in the present study showed a clinically acceptable accuracy range, regardless of the type of abutment.

show abstract

Triangular mesh reduction of digitized maxillectomy defects for prosthetic rehabilitation: A 3D deviation study

Elbashti

Aswehlee

Rahman

et al. 2022

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fabrication of a 3-dimensionally printed definitive cast for an obturator prosthesis by merging intraoral scan image with cone beam computed tomography data: A clinical report

Cited by 8 publications

References 12 publications

Feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to digitize maxillectomy defects for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review

Feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to digitize maxillectomy defects for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review

Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Based on the Type of Tooth Preparation for a Single Crown

Triangular mesh reduction of digitized maxillectomy defects for prosthetic rehabilitation: A 3D deviation study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About