2024
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.03.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of a handheld minicomputer and an external graphics processing unit in performing 3D intraoral scans

Taseef Hasan Farook,
James Dudley
Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A pilot evaluation assessed the hardware used and operator-induced biases, revealing that neither the choice of hardware nor the clinical experience of the operator influenced machine predictions 20 . It was also found that mobile devices were capable of capturing data comparable to standard workstations 21 meaning medical devices and graphics processing units connected through highspeed terminals such as USB-4 and Oculink are capable of generating accurate sampling data without signal loss. CAD software (Meshmixer; Autodesk Inc.) measured inter-canine and intermolar distances, arch perimeters, overjet, and overbite.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A pilot evaluation assessed the hardware used and operator-induced biases, revealing that neither the choice of hardware nor the clinical experience of the operator influenced machine predictions 20 . It was also found that mobile devices were capable of capturing data comparable to standard workstations 21 meaning medical devices and graphics processing units connected through highspeed terminals such as USB-4 and Oculink are capable of generating accurate sampling data without signal loss. CAD software (Meshmixer; Autodesk Inc.) measured inter-canine and intermolar distances, arch perimeters, overjet, and overbite.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%