Analysis of the relationship between the surface topography of prepared tooth surfaces and data quality of digital impressions from an intraoral scanner

Asar, Neşet Volkan; Yun, Sarah; Schwartz, Shelby; Türkyilmaz, Ilser

doi:10.1016/j.jds.2021.07.013

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In relation to fingerprints, trueness is an important measure for analyzing a model from this source [ 27 , 58 ]. This is while the evidence of accuracy of digital impressions according to the literature consulted would be clinically acceptable between 50 and 120 μm [ 59 , 60 , 61 ], which means that the accuracy of the digital impression as a first step in any digital workflow should be below that range. It is noteworthy that the accuracy of today’s digital impressions has led to their integration into dental offices [ 7 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software

Abad-Coronel,

Pazán,

Hidalgo

et al. 2023

Dentistry Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the great demand in the market for new dental software, the need has been seen to carry out a precision study for applications in digital dentistry, for which there is no comparative study, and there is a general ignorance regarding their applications. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy differences between digital impressions obtained using generic G-CAD (general CAD) and D-CAD (CAD dental) software. Today, there is a difference between the design software used in dentistry and these in common use. Thus, it is necessary to make a comparison of precision software for specific and generic dental use. We hypothesized that there is no significant difference between the software for specific and general dental use. Methods: A typodont was digitized with an intraoral scanner and the models obtained were exported in STL format to four different softwares (Autodesk MeshMixer 3.5, Exocad Dental, Blender for dental, and InLAB). The STL files obtained by each software were materialized using a 3D printer. The printed models were scanned and exported in STL files, with which six pairs of groups were formed. The groups were compared using analysis software (3D Geomagic Control X) by superimposing them in the initial alignment order and using the best fit method. Results: There were no significant differences between the four analyzed software types; however, group 4, composed of the combination of D-CAD (Blender–InLAB), obtained the highest average (−0.0324 SD = 0.0456), with a higher accuracy compared to the group with the lowest average (group 5, composed of the combination of the Meshmixer and Blender models), a generic software and a specific software (0.1024 SD = 0.0819). Conclusion: Although no evidence of significant difference was found regarding the accuracy of 3D models produced by G-CAD and D-CAD, combinations of groups where specific dental design software was present showed higher accuracy (precision and trueness). The comparison of the 3D graphics obtained with the superimposition of the digital meshes of the printed models performed with the help of the analysis software using the best fit method, replicating the same five reference points for the six groups formed, evidenced a greater tolerance in the groups using D-CAD.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software

Abad-Coronel,

Pazán,

Hidalgo

et al. 2023

Dentistry Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead of following conventional fabrication methods, clinicians have evolved to utilizing digital dentistry including intraoral scanners (IOS), digital impressions, and 3-dimensional (3-D) printing. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 This advancement yields better results for patients, eliminating errors seen in more conventional dentistry. 6 , 7 , 8 For example, clinicians no longer have to worry about the impression material distorting over time or the expansion of stone models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the impact of various finish line designs and occlusal morphologies on the accuracy of digital impressions

Gunel¹,

Güncü²,

Uzel³

et al. 2023

Journal of Dental Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(10) Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are revolutionizing dentistry through the advent of digital dentistry. (11)(12)(13) In all IOS devices, the light projection is captured as discrete images or videos, which are then stitched together by a program when the POI (points of interest) are identified. Furthermore, a video made up of many images per second in a continuous data flow or a wave analysis can be used to create a surface reconstruction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect Of Different Scanning Protocols On The Retention Of Duplicated Maxillary Complete Denture. (A cross sectional study)

Fadl,

sharabasy

2023

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of three different scanning techniques used for duplication of maxillary complete denture on the denture retention. Materials and Methods:Ten completely edentulous patients with the age range of 55-65 years old who received new complete upper and lower dentures and recalled after one month to assess their satisfaction of the upper denture retention were selected. For each patient, the maxillary denture was digitally duplicated using three different scanning techniques so three duplicate dentures and three groups were generated according to the way of scanning: Group 1: Duplicated maxillary denture using a desktop scanner. Group 2: Duplicated maxillary denture using a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Group 3: Duplicated maxillary denture using an Intra-oral scanner (IOS). The data were then sent to the 3D printer for digital manufacturing of the prostheses. Retention force which is the maximum force required to completely dislodge the maxillary denture was measured using a digital force gauge with a capacity of 100 N, a minimum unit of 0.1 N, and an accuracy of 0.5%. The device's hook engaged the ring and exerted a dislodging force until the denture was pulled out of its place. The measurements were repeated five times at five minutes intervals for each denture base and the average value was identified.Results: It was found that mean of retention value of printed duplicate dentures was 45.40, 38.10 and 32.10 N for group 1, 2 and 3 respectively, a significant difference between the groups was found (p < 0.001). When comparing between groups, it was found that the mean value of retention of group 1 is higher than that of group 2 and 3, on the other hand, the mean value of retention of group 3 is the lowest between all groups. A significant difference was found between (group 1 & group 2) with p value (=0.002) and a high significant difference was found both between (group 1 & group 3) and between (group 2 & group 3) with p value (<0.001). Conclusion:Digital duplication of complete denture using the desktop scanner yielded the most retentive denture followed by using the CBCT and the least retentive denture was that made using the IOS.

show abstract

Analysis of the relationship between the surface topography of prepared tooth surfaces and data quality of digital impressions from an intraoral scanner

Cited by 6 publications

References 25 publications

Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software

Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software

Analysis of the impact of various finish line designs and occlusal morphologies on the accuracy of digital impressions

Effect Of Different Scanning Protocols On The Retention Of Duplicated Maxillary Complete Denture. (A cross sectional study)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About