White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions
2
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the digitizing of silicon rubber impressions of abutment teeth by using a white light scanner and compare differences in repeatability between different abutment teeth types. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Silicon rubber impressions of a canine, premolar, and molar tooth were each digitized 8 times using a white light scanner, and 3D surface models were created using the point clouds. The size of any discrepancy between each model and the corresponding reference tooth were measured, and the distribution of these values was analyzed by an inspection software (PowerInspect 2012, Delcamplc., Birmingham, UK). Absolute values of discrepancies were analyzed by the Kruskal–allis test and multiple comparisons (α=.05). RESULTS. The discrepancy between the impressions for the canine, premolar, and molar teeth were 6.3 μm (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.2), 6.4 μm (95% CI, 5.3-7.6), and 8.9 μm (95% CI, 8.2-9.5), respectively. The discrepancy of the molar tooth impression was significantly higher than that of other tooth types. The largest variation (as mean [SD]) in discrepancies was seen in the premolar tooth impression scans: 26.7 μm (95% CI, 19.7-33.8); followed by canine and molar teeth impressions, 16.3 μm (95% CI, 15.3- 17.3), and 14.0 μm (95% CI, 12.3-15.7), respectively. CONCLUSION. The repeatability of the digitizing abutment teeth’ silicon rubber impressions by using a white light scanner was improved compared to that with a laser scanner, showing only a low mean discrepancy between 6.3 μm and 8.9 μm, which was in an clinically acceptable range. Premolar impression with a long and narrow shape showed a significantly larger discrepancy than canine and molar impressions. Further work is needed to increase the digitizing performance of the white light scanner for deep and slender impressions.
Abstract
PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the digitizing of silicon rubber impressions of abutment teeth by using a white light scanner and compare differences in repeatability between different abutment teeth types. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Silicon rubber impressions of a canine, premolar, and molar tooth were each digitized 8 times using a white light scanner, and 3D surface models were created using the point clouds. The size of any discrepancy between each model and the corresponding reference tooth were measured, and the distribution of these values was analyzed by an inspection software (PowerInspect 2012, Delcamplc., Birmingham, UK). Absolute values of discrepancies were analyzed by the Kruskal–allis test and multiple comparisons (α=.05). RESULTS. The discrepancy between the impressions for the canine, premolar, and molar teeth were 6.3 μm (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.2), 6.4 μm (95% CI, 5.3-7.6), and 8.9 μm (95% CI, 8.2-9.5), respectively. The discrepancy of the molar tooth impression was significantly higher than that of other tooth types. The largest variation (as mean [SD]) in discrepancies was seen in the premolar tooth impression scans: 26.7 μm (95% CI, 19.7-33.8); followed by canine and molar teeth impressions, 16.3 μm (95% CI, 15.3- 17.3), and 14.0 μm (95% CI, 12.3-15.7), respectively. CONCLUSION. The repeatability of the digitizing abutment teeth’ silicon rubber impressions by using a white light scanner was improved compared to that with a laser scanner, showing only a low mean discrepancy between 6.3 μm and 8.9 μm, which was in an clinically acceptable range. Premolar impression with a long and narrow shape showed a significantly larger discrepancy than canine and molar impressions. Further work is needed to increase the digitizing performance of the white light scanner for deep and slender impressions.
참고문헌 (14)
- Persson A, "A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touchprobe scanner", J Prosthet Dent, 95, pp.194~200 (2006)
- Schaefer O, "Three-dimensional fit of lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro", J Dent, 41, pp.271~277 (2013)
- Schaefer O, "Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility", Dent Mater, 28, pp.320~326 (2012)
- Hewlett ER, "Accuracy testing of threedimensional digitizing systems", Dent Mater, 8, pp.49~53 (1992)
- Luthardt RG, "Accuracy of mechanical digitizing with a CAD", CAM system for fixed restorations, 2001, pp.14, 146~151
- Dahlmo KI, "On a new method to assess the accuracy of a CAD program", Int J Prosthodont, 14, pp.276~283 (2001)
- Kuroda T, "Threedimensional dental cast analyzing system using laser scanning", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 110, pp.365~369 (1996)
- Persson AS, "Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness", Dent Mater, 25, pp.929~936 (2009)
- 이경탁, "치과용 스캐너로 채득한 디지털 모형의 반복성 및 재현성에 관한 3차원적 평가", 대한치과기공학회지, 34(3), pp.213~220 (2012), 대한치과기공학회
- Quaas S, "Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD", CAM restorations, 2007, pp.35, 903~908
- DeLong R, "Factors influencing optical 3D scanning of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials", J Prosthodont, 10, pp.78~85 (2001)
- Luthardt RG, "A new method for the computer-aided evaluation of three-dimensional changes in gypsum materials", Dent Mater, 19, pp.19~24 (2003)
- Nazzal R, "CAD scanners and design software", Inside Dent Tech, 3, pp.7~ (2012)
- Blais F, "Review of 20 years of range sensor development", J Electron Imaging, 13, pp.231~240 (2004)