The evolution of the CEREC system

Mörmann, Werner

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0398

Cited by 294 publications

(201 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

184

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The conventional dual arch tray technique can produce dental casts with comparable accuracy to full-arch impressions [1,4,10,11]. The digital intraoral impression was introduced for the indication of single unit restorations [12]. The capture of the intraoral situation by means of 3D cameras made the immediate creation of a digital model and on-site production of restoration possible [13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES Quadrant impressions are commonly used as alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI, and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90 1 0value.T hevaluesf oralltestgroupswerestatisticallycompared.RESU LT ST heprecisionrangedf rom18.8(CI) ABSTRACTObjectives: Quadrant impressions are a commonly used alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques Materials and Methods: Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90_10 value. The values for all test groups were statistically compared. Results: The precision ranged from 18.8 µm (CI) to 58.5 µm (T-Tray), with the highest precision in the CI, T-Def, BC4.0, TRC, and TRI groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly depending on the impression method. Impression systems with single-shot capture exhibited greater deviations at the tooth surface whereas high-frame-rate impression systems differed more in gingival areas. Triple tray impressions displayed higher local deviation at the occlusal contact areas of upper and lower jaw. Conclusions:Digital quadrant impression methods achieve a level of precision, comparable to conventional impression techniques. However there are significant differences in terms of absolute values and deviation pattern.Clinical Relevance: With all tested digital impression sys...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since its inception over 30 years ago, intraoral scanning has become an increasingly popular method for recording impressions for dental prosthodontic treatment [7]. Much work has been reported comparing the trueness and precision of these scans to traditional impressions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan

Keeling

Ferrari

2017

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Title: Confounding Factors Affecting the Marginal Quality of an Intra-Oral ScanObjectives: To assess the effect of clinical factors on the quality of intra-oral scans of crown margins. These factors are; presence of adjacent teeth, proximity to gingivae, encumbrance of wand positioning within oral cavity. Methods:A typodont lower molar (Frasaco, Germany) was prepared for an all-ceramic crown with 1.5mm supraginigival (lingual) and equigingival (buccal) margins. The tooth was scanned in a model scanner, creating a master scan.An intra-oral scanner (IOS) (Omnicam, Sirona Dental) was used to acquire sets of 5 scans each, under varying conditions; 1)the presence/absence of adjacent teeth, 2)model mounted in manikin head/hand-held, 3)with/without a 1mm shim to elevate the margin. Every combination was investigated, yielding 40 scans (8 groups of 5).The master scan margin was identified by selecting the highest curvature region (>1.8). The master was aligned to each IOS scan, and 4 regions of each IOS scan margin were extracted, lying within 100µm of predefined mesial, distal, buccal and lingual sections of the master margin.The mean curvature of each margin section was calculated using Meshlab. The effect of each confounding factor on margin curvature was analysed using ANOVA.Results: Lingual margin curvature remained consistent regardless of scanning conditions. Buccal margin curvature was significantly affected when located equigingivally. Mesial margin curvature was significantly affected in the presence of adjacent teeth and proximity to the gingivae. Distal margin curvature was significantly affected by all three confounding factors. Conclusions:The curvature (sharpness) of the margin recorded by a commercial IOS is significantly affected by clinical factors obscuring visibility.

show abstract

“…The choice of whether polymer or ceramic material is the best for tooth coloured CAD/CAM inlay restorations has already been the topic of deliberations during development and introduction of the first clinically applicable CAD/CAM system in 1985 [1,2]. Using material blocks which are prefabricated under controlled conditions by the manufacturer, CAD/CAM offers the chance to use materials at their highest obtainable quality, assuming that the material is not weakened by the automatic machining process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal adaptation, fracture load and macroscopic failure mode of adhesively luted PMMA-based CAD/CAM inlays

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES To evaluate marginal adaptation, fracture load and failure types of CAD/CAM polymeric inlays. METHODS Standardized prepared human molars (48) were divided into four groups (n=12): (A) PCG (positive control group); adhesively luted glass-ceramic inlays, (B) TRX; CAD/CAM polymeric inlays luted using a self-adhesive resin cement, (C) TAC; CAD/CAM polymeric inlays luted using a conventional resin cement, and (D) NCG (negative control group); direct-filled resin-based composite restorations. All specimens were subjected to a chewing simulator. Before and after chewing fatigue, marginal adaptation was assessed at two interfaces: (1) between dental hard tissues and luting cement and (2) between luting cement and restoration. Thereafter, the specimens were loaded and the fracture loads, as well as the failure types, were determined. The data were analysed using three-and one-way ANOVA with post hoc Scheffé test, two sample Student's t-test (p<0.05). RESULTS Before and after chewing fatigue, marginal adaptation for interface 1 showed significantly better results for TRX and PCG than for TAC (p=0.001-0.02) and NCG (p=0.001-0.047). For interface 2, marginal adaptation for TAC was significantly inferior to TRX (p<0.001) and PCG (p<0.001). Chewing fatigue had a negative impact on the marginal adaptation of TAC and NCG. No significant differences in fracture load were found between all tested groups. SIGNIFICANCE Self-adhesive luted polymeric CAD/CAM inlays showed similar marginal adaptation and fracture load values compared to adhesively luted glass-ceramic inlays. CAD/CAM polymeric inlays luted using a self-adhesive resin cement, C) TAC; CAD/CAM polymeric inlays luted using a conventional resin cement, and D) NCG (negative control group); direct-filled resin-based composite restorations. All specimens were subjected to a chewing simulator. Before and after chewing fatigue, marginal adaptation was assessed at two interfaces: 1) between dental hard tissues and luting cement and 2) between luting cement and restoration. Thereafter, the specimens were loaded and the fracture loads, as well as the failure types, were determined. The data were analysed using three-and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Scheffé test, two sample Student's t-test and Weibull statistics (p < 0.05).Results: Before and after chewing fatigue, marginal adaptation for interface 1 showed significantly better results for TRX and PCG than for TAC (p = 0.001 -0.02) and NCG (p = 0.001 -0.047). For interface 2, marginal adaptation for TAC was significantly inferior to TRX (p < 0.001) and PCG (p < 0.001). Chewing fatigue had a negative impact on the marginal adaptation of TAC and NCG. No significant differences in fracture load were found between all tested groups. Group TAC showed the highest Weibull moduli (m = 4.49) and group PCG the lowest (m = 2.78).Significance: Self-adhesive luted polymeric CAD/CAM inlays showed similar marginal adaptation and fracture load values compared to adhesively luted glass-ceramic inlays.3

show abstract

The evolution of the CEREC system

Cited by 294 publications

References 4 publications

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan

Marginal adaptation, fracture load and macroscopic failure mode of adhesively luted PMMA-based CAD/CAM inlays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About