Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners

Lee, Jaejun; Jeong, II-Do; Park, Jin-Young; Jeon, Jin-Hun; Kim, Ji‐Hwan; Kim, Woong-Chul

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.021

Cited by 65 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12,17 The direct 3D digitalization reduced the risk of imprecision due to the elimination of intermediate steps required by the scanning of plaster casts. 18 Since scanning precision improves from full arch to quadrant and to single tooth, [19][20][21] each tooth was superimposed separately.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Fluorescence-aided Identification Technique (FIT) to assist clean-up after orthodontic bracket debonding

Stadler

Dettwiler

Meller

et al. 2019

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare a fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) with a conventional light source (CLS) for removing composite during debonding of brackets with respect to time needed, composite remnants, and tooth substance loss. Materials and Methods: Twelve maxillary models with 10 bovine teeth each were digitally surface-scanned and metal brackets were bonded on each tooth with Opal Seal and Opal Bond. Two operators: an experienced orthodontist (A) and an undergraduate student (B) received six models each and were asked to remove the composite remnants with a tungsten carbide bur and Sof-Lex discs by both a conventional light source (CLS group, n = 3), and fluorescent inducing light (FIT group, n = 3). The time taken was recorded, and a postoperative scan was digitally superimposed on the preoperative scan to quantify number of teeth with composite remnants and volume and thickness of enamel loss and composite remnants. Chi-square test and independent t-tests were performed to compare methods with a significance level of 5%. Results: Compared to CLS, both operators needed significantly less time when using the FIT method and degree of enamel loss, height, and volume of composite remnants and total remaining composite remnants were significantly reduced. By FIT, the volume of enamel loss was significantly reduced for operator A only. Operator B removed the same enamel volume with either method. Conclusions: Cleanup after orthodontic debonding with the FIT was superior regarding time needed and removal of composite remnants. Total enamel loss reduction was operator-dependent.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Fluorescence-aided Identification Technique (FIT) to assist clean-up after orthodontic bracket debonding

Stadler

Dettwiler

Meller

et al. 2019

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is because the area into which the LEDs are projected at the time of scanning expands in the direction of the major axis, resulting in a high probability of scan error. 7 31 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a recently developed scanner, and it reportedly has a smaller scan error and higher scanning accuracy than conventional scanners. 6 7 24 25 Comparative evaluation of the trueness and precision of the abutment impression scanning were then compared with those of the stone model scanning according to dental CAD/CAM evaluation standards. To evaluate the trueness of abutment impression scanning, the impression was fixed on the scanner table.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trueness and precision of scanning abutment impressions and stone models according to dental CAD/CAM evaluation standards

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe purpose of the present study was to compare scanning trueness and precision between an abutment impression and a stone model according to dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) evaluation standards.MATERIALS AND METHODSTo evaluate trueness, the abutment impression and stone model were scanned to obtain the first 3-dimensional (3-D) stereolithography (STL) file. Next, the abutment impression or stone model was removed from the scanner and re-fixed on the table; scanning was then repeated so that 11 files were obtained for each scan type. To evaluate precision, the abutment impression or stone model was scanned to obtain the first 3-D STL file. Without moving it, scanning was performed 10 more times, so that 11 files were obtained for each scan type. By superimposing the first scanned STL file onto the other STL files one by one, 10 color-difference maps and reports were obtained; i.e., 10 experimental scans per type. The independent t-test was used to compare root mean square (RMS) data between the groups (α=.05).RESULTSThe RMS±SD values of scanning trueness of the abutment impression and stone model were 22.4±4.4 and 17.4±3.5 µm, respectively (P<.012). The RMS±SD values of scanning precision of the abutment impression and stone model were 16.4±2.9 and 14.6±1.6 µm, respectively (P=.108).CONCLUSIONThere was a significant difference in scanning trueness between the abutment impression and stone model, as evaluated according to dental CAD/CAM standards. However, all scans showed high trueness and precision.

show abstract

“…Both CEREC and E4D systems can work with milling machines to allow the dentist to have in-office restorations milled on the same day (8) . The advantages of intra-oral scanners include the elimination of impression materials and trays, increased patient satisfaction, time efficiency, the elimination of physical models that must be sent to an outside laboratory for restoration fabrication (8,(12)(13)(14)(15) . However, there are some limitations that can affect the quality of intraoral scans, such as reflection of light, presence of saliva, patient movement, inadequate visualization of subgingival margins (13,16) .…”

Section: Scannersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant Position Using Surgical Guides Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Techniques

Henprasert

Dawson

El‐Kerdani

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Queiruga for your assistance in developing the measurement protocol and for providing training on GeoMagic software. Thank you to Kyle Bennett for his technical support in milling the surgical guides. Thank you to my co-residents for your help and sharing practical suggestions throughout the years of my study. I am also grateful to all the faculty, staff and dental assistants for their support and assistance.

show abstract

Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners

Cited by 65 publications

References 22 publications

Evaluation of a Fluorescence-aided Identification Technique (FIT) to assist clean-up after orthodontic bracket debonding

Evaluation of a Fluorescence-aided Identification Technique (FIT) to assist clean-up after orthodontic bracket debonding

Trueness and precision of scanning abutment impressions and stone models according to dental CAD/CAM evaluation standards

Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant Position Using Surgical Guides Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About