Digital Morphology Comparisons between Models of Conventional Intraoral Casting and Digital Rapid Prototyping

Kuo, Rong-Fu; Chen, Shing-Jye; Wong, Tai‐Chee; Lu, Bo-Cheng; Huang, Zheng-Han

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11776-8_118

Cited by 4 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, both the LC and ZC exhibited positive and negative errors in the inner face generated during the process of combining the digital impressions of the crown. These findings support those of previously published studies on this topic 29303132333435363738394041. The quantitative evaluation of the marginal adaptation is not yet standardized and can be misleading 42.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe purposes of this study were to evaluate the marginal and internal gaps, and the potential clinical applications of three different methods of dental prostheses fabrication, and to compare the prostheses prepared using the silicone replica technique (SRT) and those prepared using the three-dimensional superimposition analysis (3DSA).MATERIALS AND METHODSFive Pekkton, lithium disilicate, and zirconia crowns were each manufactured and tested using both the SRT and the two-dimensional section of the 3DSA. The data were analyzed with the nonparametric version of a two-way analysis of variance using rank-transformed values and the Tukey's post-hoc test (α = .05).RESULTSSignificant differences were observed between the fabrication methods in the marginal gap (P < .010), deep chamfer (P < .001), axial wall (P < .001), and occlusal area (P < .001). A significant difference in the occlusal area was found between the two measurement methods (P < .030), whereas no significant differences were found in the marginal gap (P > .350), deep chamfer (P > .719), and axial wall (P > .150). As the 3DSA method is three-dimensional, it allows for the measurement of arbitrary points.CONCLUSIONAll of the three fabrication methods are valid for measuring clinical objectives because they produced prostheses within the clinically acceptable range. Furthermore, a three-dimensional superimposition analysis verification method such as the silicone replica technique is also applicable in clinical settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The inclusion criteria for the studies that collected patient samples (digital or physical impressions or models) varied slightly with the majority ( n = 14/25) being full arch dentate post-orthodontic models, including up to permanent first molars [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. One of the studies [ 42 ] also used a model with a shortened dental arch.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-four studies included reference models as controls in their methodology design [ 6 , 7 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. The controls included were a dental stone cast ( n = 8), a digital STL image of a dental stone cast ( n = 3), typodont digital STL image ( n = 7), typodont ( n = 1), prefabricated resin model digital STL image ( n = 2), patient intraoral scan image (2) or a dry human skull ( n = 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MJ technology used photopolymers resins (acrylates) in liquid form and BJ technology used polylactic acid powder. Eleven studies did not specify the material used for the corresponding technology [ 19 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. Within the studies assessing stone models, four used Type IV dental stone [ 6 , 35 , 40 , 45 ], one used Type III dental stone [ 4 ] and one did not specify the stone type utilised [ 34 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The three types of base designs used in the studies were horseshoe-shaped bases [ 4 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 55 ], regular American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) [ 35 , 38 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 52 , 54 , 57 ] and horseshoe-shaped with a transverse supporting bar [ 7 , 38 , 48 , 53 ]. Six studies did not specify their base design [ 6 , 19 , 40 , 42 , 45 , 56 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of 3-Dimensionally Printed Full-Arch Dental Models: A Systematic Review

Etemad-Shahidi

Qallandar

Evenden

et al. 2020

JCM

122

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of additive manufacturing in dentistry has exponentially increased with dental model construction being the most common use of the technology. Henceforth, identifying the accuracy of additively manufactured dental models is critical. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature and evaluate the accuracy of full-arch dental models manufactured using different 3D printing technologies. Seven databases were searched, and 2209 articles initially identified of which twenty-eight studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed. A meta-analysis was not possible due to unclear reporting and heterogeneity of studies. Stereolithography (SLA) was the most investigated technology, followed by digital light processing (DLP). Accuracy of 3D printed models varied widely between <100 to >500 μm with the majority of models deemed of clinically acceptable accuracy. The smallest (3.3 μm) and largest (579 μm) mean errors were produced by SLA printers. For DLP, majority of investigated printers (n = 6/8) produced models with <100 μm accuracy. Manufacturing parameters, including layer thickness, base design, postprocessing and storage, significantly influenced the model’s accuracy. Majority of studies supported the use of 3D printed dental models. Nonetheless, models deemed clinically acceptable for orthodontic purposes may not necessarily be acceptable for the prosthodontic workflow or applications requiring high accuracy.

show abstract

Digital Workflows and Material Sciences in Dental Medicine

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of additive manufacturing in dentistry has exponentially increased with dental model construction being the most common use of the technology. Henceforth, identifying the accuracy of additively manufactured dental models is critical. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature and evaluate the accuracy of full-arch dental models manufactured using different 3D printing technologies. Seven databases were searched, and 2209 articles initially identified of which twenty-eight studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed. A meta-analysis was not possible due to unclear reporting and heterogeneity of studies. Stereolithography (SLA) was the most investigated technology, followed by digital light processing (DLP). Accuracy of 3D printed models varied widely between <100 to >500 µm with the majority of models deemed of clinically acceptable accuracy. The smallest (3.3 µm) and largest (579 µm) mean errors were produced by SLA printers. For DLP, majority of investigated printers (n = 6/8) produced models with <100 µm accuracy. Manufacturing parameters, including layer thickness, base design, postprocessing and storage, significantly influenced the model's accuracy. Majority of studies supported the use of 3D printed dental models. Nonetheless, models deemed clinically acceptable for orthodontic purposes may not necessarily be acceptable for the prosthodontic workflow or applications requiring high accuracy.

show abstract

Digital Morphology Comparisons between Models of Conventional Intraoral Casting and Digital Rapid Prototyping

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis

Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis

Accuracy of 3-Dimensionally Printed Full-Arch Dental Models: A Systematic Review

Digital Workflows and Material Sciences in Dental Medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About