Ceramic molar crown reproducibility by digital workflow manufacturing: An <i>in vitro</i> study

Jeong, II-Do; Kim, Woong-Chul; Park, Jin-Young; Kim, Chong-Myeong; Kim, Ji‐Hwan

doi:10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.252

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tolerance limit level of the inner surface range was set to maximum/minimum value ± 50 µm and the maximum/minimum critical value was set to ± 100 µm. 17 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technique

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSETo compare and analyze trueness and precision of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technology.MATERIALS AND METHODSDigital impressions were made using a master model and an intraoral scanner and the crowns were designed with CAD software; in total, 22 crowns were produced. After superimposing CAD design data and scan data using a 3D program, quantitative and qualitative data were obtained for analysis of trueness and precision. Statistical analysis was performed using normality test combined with Levene test for equal variance analysis and independent sample t-test. Type 1 error was set at 0.05.RESULTSTrueness for the outer and inner surfaces of the SLA crown (SLAC) were 49.6±9.3 µm and 22.5±5.1 µm, respectively, and those of the subtractive crown (SUBC) were 31.8±7.5 µm and 14.6±1.2 µm, respectively. Precision values for the outer and inner surfaces of the SLAC were 18.7±6.2 µm and 26.9±8.5 µm, and those of the SUBC were 25.4±3.1 µm and 13.8±0.6 µm, respectively. Trueness values for the outer and inner surfaces of the SLAC and SUBC showed statistically significant differences (P<.001). Precision for the inner surface showed significance (P<.03), whereas that for the outer surface showed no significance (P<.58).CONCLUSIONThe study demonstrates that provisional crowns produced by subtractive technology are superior to crowns fabricated by stereolithography in terms of accuracy.

show abstract

“…Tolerance limit level of the inner surface range was set to maximum/minimum value ± 50 µm and the maximum/minimum critical value was set to ± 100 µm. 17 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technique

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The accuracy was evaluated by measuring the distance from any reference point or shape [19,20]. Furthermore, in many previous studies, 3D analysis was performed by an overlapping CAD reference model (CRM), which is the basis of evaluation, and CAD test model (CTM), which is the subject of evaluation, and calculating the distances of the corresponding 3D modeling points [21][22][23]. The alignment process, overlapping with CRM on software, is an important point in the 3D analysis, and the overlapping process is generally studied via best fit alignment [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Intaglio Surface Trueness of Interim Dental Crowns Fabricated with SLA 3D Printing, DLP 3D Printing, and Milling Technologies

Lee

Lee²

2021

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the intaglio surface trueness of interim dental crowns fabricated with three 3-dimensional (3D) printing and milling technologies. Dental crown was designated and assigned as a computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM). Interim dental crowns were fabricated based on CRM using two types of 3D printer technologies (stereolithography apparatus and digital light processing) and one type of milling machine (n = 15 per technology). The fabricated interim dental crowns were obtained via 3D modeling of the intaglio surface using a laboratory scanner and designated as CAD test models (CTMs). The alignment and 3D comparison of CRM and CTM were performed based on the intaglio surface using a 3D inspection software program (Geomagic Control X). Statistical analysis was validated using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). There were significant differences in intaglio surface trueness between the three different fabrication technologies, and high trueness values were observed in the milling group (p < 0.05). In the milling group, there was a significant difference in trueness according to the location of the intaglio surface (p < 0.001). In the manufacturing process of interim dental crowns, 3D printing technologies showed superior and uniform manufacturing accuracy than milling technology.

show abstract

“…With the advent of digital dentistry, it has become important to accurately evaluate dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) devices. 1 2 In this regard, it is vital that clinicians verify the accuracy of their scanners when using abutment stone models, and several investigations have focused on this topic. 3 4 5 However, in patients with different tooth surface conditions, shapes, sizes, etc., it is almost impossible to find the same abutment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

Ceramic molar crown reproducibility by digital workflow manufacturing: An in vitro study

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Accuracy of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technique

Accuracy of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technique

Comparison of Intaglio Surface Trueness of Interim Dental Crowns Fabricated with SLA 3D Printing, DLP 3D Printing, and Milling Technologies

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About