Journal of Technologic Dentistry (대한치과기공학회지)

Korean Academy of Dental Technology (대한치과기공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reliability, accuracy of evaluations obtained from CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC system digital impression: an in-vitro study

CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC system으로 채득된 디지털 인상의 재현성, 정확성 평가에 관한 연구

  • Kim, Jae-Hong (Dept. of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Ki-Baek (Dept. of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Hae-Young (Dept. of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Jung-Ae (Elysia dental clinic) ;
  • Kim, Woong-Chul (Dept. of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Hwan (Dept. of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University)
  • 김재홍 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공) ;
  • 김기백 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공) ;
  • 김혜영 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공) ;
  • 김정애 (엘리시아 치과의원) ;
  • 김웅철 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공) ;
  • 김지환 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공)
  • Received : 2012.04.26
  • Accepted : 2012.06.26
  • Published : 2012.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the reliability and accuracy of measurements in digital models(CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC) compared to stone models. Methods: A master model(500B-1, Nissin Dental Product, Japan) with the prepared upper full arch tooth was used. Conventional impression and then stone model(n=10) were produced from this master model, and on the other hands, digital impressions were made with the CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC intra-oral scanner(n=10). One examiner measured two times the intercanine, intermolar distance, dental arch length. The stone model were measured using a digital caliper. The t-student test for paired samples and intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) were used for statistical analysis. Results: The measurement of two methods showed very good reliability. At the intra-examiner reliability of measurement, ICC at the stone and CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC model were 0.81 and 0.94. The mean difference between measurements made directly on the stone models and those made on the CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC model was 0.20~0.28mm, and was statistically significant(P=0.001). Conclusion: These in vitro studies show that accuracy of the digital impression is similar to that of the conventional impression. These results will have to be confirmed in further clinical studies.

Keywords

References

  1. 김재홍, 김지환, 김혜영. 디지털 인상 채득 시 흔히 발생 하는 오류에 관한 연구 - $CEREC^{(R)}$ AC의 사례 중심으로. 대한치과기공학회지, 33(3), 211-218, 2011.
  2. 박상익. 총생정도에 따른 진단모형의 수작업과 3차원 디지털 작업의 계측치 비교. 고려대학교 임상치의학대학원 교정학과 석사학위논문, 2006.
  3. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 134(1), 663-694, 2001. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012
  4. Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P. Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod, 29(5), 517-522, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm044
  5. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Clinical and SEM evaluation of all-ceramic chair-side CAD/CAM generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci, 111(2), 163-169, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00022.x
  6. Birmbaum NS, Aaronson HB. Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend Contin Educ Dent, 29(8), 494-505, 2008.
  7. Christensen GJ. The state of fixed prosthodontics impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc, 136(3), 343-346, 2005. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0175
  8. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc, 140(10), 1301-1304, 2009. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054
  9. Lin LK. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45(3), 255-268, 1989. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532051
  10. Luthardt RG, Koch R, Rudolph H, Walter MH. Qualitative computer aided evaluation of dental impressions in vivo. J Dent Mater, 22(4), 69-76, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.02.015
  11. Mormann WH. The evolution of CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc, 137(2), 7S-13S, 2006a.
  12. Mormann WH. State of the art of CAD/CAM restorations 20 years of CEREC. 1st, Quintessence Publishing Co. Ltd, 1-8, 2006b.
  13. Raberin M, Laumon B, Martin J, Brunner F. Dimensions and form of dental arches in subjects with normal occlusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 104(1), 67-72, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70029-N
  14. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 124(1), 101-105, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00152-5
  15. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 129(2), 794-803, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023
  16. Tsitrou EA, Northeast SE, Van NR. Evaluation of the marginal fit of three margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD/CAM. J Dent, 35(1), 68-73, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.04.008
  17. Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod, 74(2), 298-303, 2004.
  18. Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod, 73(3), 301-306, 2003.

Cited by

  1. 치과용 스캐너 전용 석고를 이용하여 제작된 3차원 디지털 모형의 정확도 평가 vol.35, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14347/kadt.2013.35.1.029
  2. 유리섬유 보강재로 제작한 레진의치의 온성 전·후에 따른 정확성 평가 vol.39, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14347/kadt.2017.39.1.25