Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: A validation study

Cuperus, Anne Margreet R.; Harms, Marit C.; Rangel, Frits A.; Bronkhorst, Ewald M.; Schols, Jan G. J. H.; Breuning, K. Hero

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.031

Cited by 98 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, the few other studies that have addressed the accuracy of models derived from fullarch intraoral scans generally found that these models were clinically acceptable for diagnosis, treatment planning, and fabrication of removable orthodontic appliances. [15][16][17][18][19] In the clinical part of our study, the biases for individual tooth positions ranged from À0.05 to 0.21 mm, and those for arch width and arch length ranged from À0.10 A positive bias indicates buccal displacement (transverse direction), posterior displacement (sagittal direction), and superior displacement (vertical direction) of individual teeth, increased arch width, or increased arch length of the COS-derived models relative to the model scanner-derived models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance

Grünheid¹,

McCarthy²,

Larson³

2014

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

206

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance

Grünheid¹,

McCarthy²,

Larson³

2014

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

206

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Barker et al3 compared dried skull and duplicated stereolithographic models and reported a mean difference of 0.85 mm, and Kragskov et al4 found 0.3-0.8-mm differences between 3D CT scan images and stereolithographic models. Recently, Cuperus et al5 performed a study, which compared human skulls, digital images, and stereolithographic models, and concluded validity of the models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and precision of polyurethane dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping method with an intraoral scanning technique

Kim

et al. 2014

Korean J Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of polyurethane (PUT) dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional (3D) subtractive rapid prototyping (RP) method with an intraoral scanning technique by comparing linear measurements obtained from PUT models and conventional plaster models.MethodsTen plaster models were duplicated using a selected standard master model and conventional impression, and 10 PUT models were duplicated using the 3D subtractive RP technique with an oral scanner. Six linear measurements were evaluated in terms of x, y, and z-axes using a non-contact white light scanner. Accuracy was assessed using mean differences between two measurements, and precision was examined using four quantitative methods and the Bland-Altman graphical method. Repeatability was evaluated in terms of intra-examiner variability, and reproducibility was assessed in terms of inter-examiner and inter-method variability.ResultsThe mean difference between plaster models and PUT models ranged from 0.07 mm to 0.33 mm. Relative measurement errors ranged from 2.2% to 7.6% and intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.93 to 0.96, when comparing plaster models and PUT models. The Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement.ConclusionsThe accuracy and precision of PUT dental models for evaluating the performance of oral scanner and subtractive RP technology was acceptable. Because of the recent improvements in block material and computerized numeric control milling machines, the subtractive RP method may be a good choice for dental arch models.

show abstract

“…12,13 Numerous studies have evaluated the accuracy and reliability of measurements made on digital models compared with plaster models and have determined that measurements on the 2 types of models are generally equivalent. 2,5,12,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Measurements on digital models have also been found to be more precise than those made on plaster models. 24 Studies evaluating intra-arch measurements such as tooth size, arch length, and transverse measurements have shown that digital models are accurate and reliable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models

Sweeney

Messersmith

2015

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: A validation study

Cited by 98 publications

References 13 publications

Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance

Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance

Accuracy and precision of polyurethane dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping method with an intraoral scanning technique

Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About