Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model
2
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. The accuracy of a gypsum model (GM), which was taken using a conventional silicone impression technique, was compared with that of a polyurethane model (PM), which was taken using an iTero™ digital impression system. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The maxillary first molar artificial tooth was selected as the reference tooth. The GMs were fabricated through a silicone impression of a reference tooth, and PMs were fabricated by a digital impression (n=9, in each group). The reference tooth and experimental models were scanned using a 3 shape convinceTM scan system. Each GM and PM image was superimposed on the registered reference model (RM) and 2D images were obtained. The discrepancies of the points registered on the superimposed images were measured and defined as GM-RM group and PM-RM group. Statistical analysis was performed using a Student’'s T-test (α=0.05). RESULTS. A comparison of the absolute value of the discrepancyrevealed a significant difference between the two groups only at the occlusal surface. The GM group showed a smaller mean discrepancy than the PM group. Significant differences in the GM-RM group and PM-RM group were observed in the margins (point a and f), mesial mid-axial wall (point b) and occlusal surfaces (point c and d). CONCLUSION. Under the conditions examined, the digitally fabricated polyurethane model showed a tendency for a reduced size in the margin than the reference tooth. The conventional gypsum model showed a smaller discrepancy on the occlusal surface than the polyurethane model.
Abstract
PURPOSE. The accuracy of a gypsum model (GM), which was taken using a conventional silicone impression technique, was compared with that of a polyurethane model (PM), which was taken using an iTero™ digital impression system. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The maxillary first molar artificial tooth was selected as the reference tooth. The GMs were fabricated through a silicone impression of a reference tooth, and PMs were fabricated by a digital impression (n=9, in each group). The reference tooth and experimental models were scanned using a 3 shape convinceTM scan system. Each GM and PM image was superimposed on the registered reference model (RM) and 2D images were obtained. The discrepancies of the points registered on the superimposed images were measured and defined as GM-RM group and PM-RM group. Statistical analysis was performed using a Student’'s T-test (α=0.05). RESULTS. A comparison of the absolute value of the discrepancyrevealed a significant difference between the two groups only at the occlusal surface. The GM group showed a smaller mean discrepancy than the PM group. Significant differences in the GM-RM group and PM-RM group were observed in the margins (point a and f), mesial mid-axial wall (point b) and occlusal surfaces (point c and d). CONCLUSION. Under the conditions examined, the digitally fabricated polyurethane model showed a tendency for a reduced size in the margin than the reference tooth. The conventional gypsum model showed a smaller discrepancy on the occlusal surface than the polyurethane model.
참고문헌 (36)
- Spear F., "In-office CAD", CAM: the future of your practice?, 2009, pp.28, 68~
- Presbyter T, "On divers arts: The foremost medieval treatise on painting, glassmaking and metalwork" (1979), Dover Publications
- Miyazaki T., "A review of dental CAD", CAM : current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience, 2009, pp.28, 44~56
- Sutton AF., "Variations in tooth preparations for resin-bonded all-ceramic crowns in general dental practice", Br Dent J, 191, pp.677~681 (2001)
- Goodacre CJ., "Tooth preparations for complete crowns : an art form based on scientific principles", J Prosthet Dent, 85, pp.363~376 (2001)
- Mörmann WH., "The evolution of the CEREC system", J Am Dent Assoc, 137, pp.7S~13S (2006)
- Allen KL., "An overview of the CEREC 3D CAD", CAM system, 2004, pp.52, 234~235
- Beuer F., "Digital dentistry : an overview of recent developments for CAD", CAM generated restorations, 2008, pp.204, 505~511
- Henkel GL., "A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions", Compend Contin Educ Dent, 28, pp.422~431 (2007)
- Christensen GJ., "Impressions are changing : deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling", J Am Dent Assoc, 140, pp.1301~1304 (2009)
- Galhano GÁ., "Optical impression systems for CAD-CAM restorations", J Craniofac Surg, 23, pp.e575~e579 (2012)
- Touchstone A., "Digital transition : the collaboration between dentists and laboratory technicians on CAD", CAM restorations, 2010, pp.141, 15S~19S
- Christensen GJ., "The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions : room for improvement", J Am Dent Assoc, 136, pp.343~346 (2005)
- "Survey respondents are upbeat and optimistic about the state of our industry", Lab Manag Today, 16, pp.9~15 (2000)
- Syrek A., "Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling", J Dent, 38, pp.553~559 (2010)
- Ender A., "Full arch scans : conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study", Int J Comput Dent, 14, pp.11~21 (2011)
- Reich S., "Clinical fit of all-ceramic three-unit fixed partial dentures, generated with three different CAD", CAM systems, 2005, pp.113, 174~179
- Bindl A., "Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD", CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations, 2005, pp.32, 441~447
- Scotti R, "Clinical fitting of CAD", CAM zirconia single crowns generated from digital intraoral impressions based on active wavefront sampling, 2011, ~
- Wöstmann B., "Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays", Int J Prosthodont, 22, pp.158~160 (2009)
- J Prosthet Dent, "Use of a scanning laser three-dimensional digitizer to evaluate dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials", J Prosthet Dent, 68, pp.229~ (1992)
- Mehl A., "Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera", Int J Comput Dent, 12, pp.11~28 (2009)
- Luthardt RG., "Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression", Int J Comput Dent, 8, pp.283~294 (2005)
- 허중보, "다양한CAD", CAM 시스템으로 제작된 3 본 고정성 가공의치 지르코니아 코어의 변연 및 내면 적합도 평가, 2011, pp.49(03), 236~244[DOI]
- "Digital Master Impressions: A Clinical Reality"[URL]
- van Noort R., "The future of dental devices is digital", Dent Mater, 28, pp.3~12 (2012)
- Miyazaki T., "CAD", CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations, 2011, pp.56, 97~106
- Tinschert J., "Status of current CAD", CAM technology in dental medicine, 2004, pp.7, 25~45
- Sorensen JA., "A standardized method for determination of crown margin fidelity", J Prosthet Dent, 64, pp.18~24 (1990)
- Moon BH., "A study on the marginal fit of all-ceramic crown using CCD camera", J Korean Acad Prosthodont, 36, pp.273~292 (1998)
- Tjan AH., "Effect of tray space on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impressions", J Prosthet Dent, 68, pp.19~28 (1992)
- Jørgensen KD., "Factors affecting the film thickness of Zinc phosphate cements", Acta Odontol Scand, 18, pp.479~490 (1960)
- Christensen GJ., "Marginal fit of gold inlay castings", J Prosthet Dent, 16, pp.297~305 (1966)
- McLean JW., "The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique", Br Dent J, 131, pp.107~111 (1971)
- McLean JW., "Polycarboxylate cements. Five years’ experience in general practice", Br Dent J, 132, pp.9~15 (1972)