The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model

  • Kim, So-Yeun (Department of Prosthodontics, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Lee, So-Hyoun (Department of Prosthodontics, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Cho, Seong-Keun (DIO Co.) ;
  • Jeong, Chang-Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeon, Young-Chan (Department of Prosthodontics, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Yun, Mi-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Huh, Jung-Bo (Department of Prosthodontics, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2013.04.09
  • Accepted : 2013.12.30
  • Published : 2014.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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$^{TM}$ 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 convince$^{TM}$ 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 (${\alpha}=0.05$). RESULTS. A comparison of the absolute value of the discrepancy revealed 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Spear F, Puri S, Manji I. In-office CAD/CAM: the future of your practice? Dent Today 2009;28:68, 70-1.
  2. Presbyter T, Hawthorne JG, Smith CS. On divers arts: The foremost medieval treatise on painting, glassmaking and metalwork. Mineola, NY; Dover Publications, 1979.
  3. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.44
  4. Sutton AF, McCord JF. Variations in tooth preparations for resin-bonded all-ceramic crowns in general dental practice. Br Dent J 2001;191:677-81.
  5. Goodacre CJ, Campagni WV, Aquilino SA. Tooth preparations for complete crowns: an art form based on scientific principles. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:363-76. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.114685
  6. Lowe RA. CAD/CAM Dentistry and Chariside Digital Impression Making. www.ineedce.com. Accessed August 2012.
  7. Mormann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:7S-13S.
  8. Allen KL, Schenkel AB, Estafan D. An overview of the CEREC 3D CAD/CAM system. Gen Dent 2004;52:234-5.
  9. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350
  10. Henkel GL. A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2007;28:422-4, 426-8, 430-1.
  11. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-4. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054
  12. Galhano GÁ, Pellizzer EP, Mazaro JV. Optical impression systems for CAD-CAM restorations. J Craniofac Surg 2012;23:e575-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31826b8043
  13. Touchstone A, Nieting T, Ulmer N. Digital transition: the collaboration between dentists and laboratory technicians on CAD/CAM restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2010;141:15S-9S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0353
  14. Christensen GJ. The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136: 343-6. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0175
  15. Survey respondents are upbeat and optimistic about the state of our industry. Lab Manag Today 2000;16:9-15.
  16. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015
  17. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14: 11-21.
  18. Reich S, Wichmann M, Nkenke E, Proeschel P. Clinical fit of all-ceramic three-unit fixed partial dentures, generated with three different CAD/CAM systems. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:174-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00197.x
  19. Bindl A, Mörmann WH. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:441-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01446.x
  20. Scotti R, Cardelli P, Baldissara P, Monaco C. Clinical fitting of CAD/CAM zirconia single crowns generated from digital intraoral impressions based on active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2011 Oct 17.
  21. Wöstmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M. Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:158-60.
  22. Quick DC, Holtan JR, Ross GK. Use of a scanning laser three-dimensional digitizer to evaluate dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:229-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90319-6
  23. Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:11-28.
  24. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 2005;8:283-94.
  25. Huh JB, Kim US, Kim HY, Kim JE, Lee JY, Kim YS, Jeon YC, Shin SW. Marginal and internal fitness of three-unit zirconia cores fabricated using several CAD/CAM systems. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2011;49:236-44. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2011.49.3.236
  26. Lowe RA. Digital Master Impressions: A Clinical Reality. URL: http://www.cadentinc.com/pdfs/itero_DC_08_09.pdf. Accessed August 2012.
  27. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
  28. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y. CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. Aust Dent J 2011;56:97-106.
  29. Tinschert J, Natt G, Hassenpflug S, Spiekermann H. Status of current CAD/CAM technology in dental medicine. Int J Comput Dent 2004;7:25-45.
  30. Sorensen JA. A standardized method for determination of crown margin fidelity. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:18-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90147-5
  31. Moon BH, Yang JH, Lee SH, Chung HY. A study on the marginal fit of all-ceramic crown using CCD camera. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 1998;36:273-92.
  32. Tjan AH, Nemetz H, Nguyen LT, Contino R. Effect of tray space on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90278-I
  33. Jorgensen KD. Factors affecting the film thickness of Zinc phosphate cements. Acta Odontol Scand 1960;18:479-90. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356009043879
  34. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:297-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(66)90082-5
  35. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708
  36. McLean JW. Polycarboxylate cements. Five years' experience in general practice. Br Dent J 1972;132:9-15. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802795

Cited by

  1. Influence of various gypsum materials on precision of fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia copings vol.34, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-141
  2. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3D digital tooth preparations made by gypsum materials of various colors vol.10, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.8
  3. Comparison of the accuracy of digital impressions and traditional impressions: Systematic review vol.56, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2018.56.3.258
  4. Three-Dimensional Evaluation on Accuracy of Conventional and Milled Gypsum Models and 3D Printed Photopolymer Models vol.12, pp.21, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12213499
  5. Ceramic Materials and Technologies Applied to Digital Works in Implant-Supported Restorative Dentistry vol.13, pp.8, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13081964
  6. Comparison between Additive and Subtractive CAD-CAM Technique to Produce Orthognathic Surgical Splints: A Personalized Approach vol.10, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm10040273
  7. Assessment of Dental Arch Reproduction Quality by Using Traditional and Digital Methods vol.11, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031263