A comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners using an intraoral environment simulator
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to design an intraoral environment simulator and to assess the accuracy of two intraoral scanners using the simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A box-shaped intraoral environment simulator was designed to simulate two specific intraoral environments. The cast was scanned 10 times by Identica Blue (MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea), TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), and CS3500 (Carestream Dental, Georgia, USA) scanners in the two simulated groups. The distances between the left and right canines (D3), first molars (D6), second molars (D7), and the left canine and left second molar (D37) were measured. The distance data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS. The differences in intraoral environments were not statistically significant (P>.05). Between intraoral scanners, statistically significant differences (P<.05) were revealed by the Kruskal-Wallis test with regard to D3 and D6. CONCLUSION. No difference due to the intraoral environment was revealed. The simulator will contribute to the higher accuracy of intraoral scanners in the future.
Abstract
PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to design an intraoral environment simulator and to assess the accuracy of two intraoral scanners using the simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A box-shaped intraoral environment simulator was designed to simulate two specific intraoral environments. The cast was scanned 10 times by Identica Blue (MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea), TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), and CS3500 (Carestream Dental, Georgia, USA) scanners in the two simulated groups. The distances between the left and right canines (D3), first molars (D6), second molars (D7), and the left canine and left second molar (D37) were measured. The distance data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS. The differences in intraoral environments were not statistically significant (P>.05). Between intraoral scanners, statistically significant differences (P<.05) were revealed by the Kruskal-Wallis test with regard to D3 and D6. CONCLUSION. No difference due to the intraoral environment was revealed. The simulator will contribute to the higher accuracy of intraoral scanners in the future.
참고문헌 (24)
- Duret F, "CAD-CAM in dentistry", J Am Dent Assoc, 117, pp.715~720 (1988)[DOI]
- Logozzo S, "Recent advances in dental optics - Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry", Opt Lasers Eng, 54, pp.203~221 (2014)[DOI]
- Morris JB, "CAD", CAM options in dental implant treatment planning, 2010, pp.38, 333~336
- Kachalia PR, "Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD", CAM technology, 2010, pp.38, 323~330
- Andriessen FS, "Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study", J Prosthet Dent, 111, pp.186~194 (2014)[DOI]
- Flugge TV, "Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 144, pp.471~478 (2013)[DOI]
- Patzelt SB, "Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners", Clin Oral Investig, 18, pp.1687~1694 (2014)[DOI]
- "TRIOS, 3Shape"[URL]
- "Carestream Dental" (2016)[URL]
- Hack G, "Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: An in-vitro investigation", ADA Prof Prod Rev, 10, pp.1~5 (2015)
- Flugge TV, "Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners", Int J Prosthodont, 29, pp.277~283 (2016)[DOI]
- Patzelt SB, "Accuracy of computeraided design", computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data, 2014, pp.145, 1133~1140
- Yoshida Y, "The effect of environmental temperature and humidity on the adhesion of composite resins to the etched enamel surface", Jpn J Conserv Dent, 26, pp.412~426 (1983)
- Spierings TA, "Surface temperature of oral tissues. A review", J Biol Buccale, 12, pp.91~99 (1984)
- Creed B, "A comparison of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained from cone beam computerized tomography images and digital models", Semin Orthod, 17, pp.49~56 (2011)[DOI]
- Saraiva LO, "Influence of intraoral temperature and relative humidity on the dentin bond strength: an in situ study", J Esthet Restor Dent, 27, pp.92~99 (2015)[DOI]
- Besnault C, "Influence of a simulated oral environment on dentin bond strength of two adhesive systems", Am J Dent, 14, pp.367~372 (2001)
- Ender A, "Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision", J Prosthet Dent, 109, pp.121~128 (2013)[DOI]
- Hayashi K, "Assessment of the accuracy and reliability of new 3-dimensional scanning devices", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 144, pp.619~625 (2013)[DOI]
- Nedelcu RG, "Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis", J Prosthet Dent, 112, pp.1461~1471 (2014)[DOI]
- "Identica hybrid" (2016)[URL]
- Jeong ID, "Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study", J Prosthet Dent, 115, pp.755~759 (2016)[DOI]
- Su TS, "Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study", J Prosthodont Res, 59, pp.236~242 (2015)[DOI]
- Papaspyridakos P, "Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes", Clin Oral Implants Res, 27, pp.465~472 (2016)