구강회복응용과학지 (Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science)

  • 제34권1호
  • /
  • Pages.17-31
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2384-4353(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-4272(eISSN)
대한턱관절교합학회 (Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

구강스캐너 5종의 협측 악간관계 스캔 정확성 비교 연구

Accuracy comparison of buccal bite scans by five intra-oral scanners

  • 박지만 (연세대학교 치과대학 보철과학교실) ;
  • 전진 (서울대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 허성주 (서울대학교 치과대학 보철학교실)
  • Park, Ji-Man (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Jeon, Jin (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Heo, Seong-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2017.10.29
  • 심사 : 2017.11.06
  • 발행 : 2018.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 이 연구의 목적은 다양한 구강 스캐너를 사용하여 협측 악간관계 스캔에 따른 상하악 악궁 관계의 정확성을 비교 평가하는 것이다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 정상 교합을 보이는 상하악 전악 모델을 5종(Cerec Omnicam, CS3500, iTero, Trios, TruDef)의 구강 스캐너로 제조사의 지시대로 스캔하였다. 폴리비닐실록산 교합 재료로 고정시킨 금속 지그를 이용하여 우측 구치부를 1, 2, 3, 4 mm 단계적으로 올린 후 좌측 협측 악간관계 스캔을 채득하였다. 두 데이터를 중첩하여 전체적인 삼차원 변이를 평가하였고, 교합 평면에 수직인 단면을 분석하여 교두간 거리의 양과 방향을 평가하였다. 결과: 중첩연구에서 Cerec Omnicam ($165.5{\mu}m$)이 가장 적은 변이를 보였고, CS3500 ($369.0{\mu}m$)이 가장 큰 변이를 보였으며(P < 0.01), 1 mm 보다 3, 4, 2 mm 이개 그룹에서 변이가 유의미하게 컸다(P < 0.01). 단면 연구에서는 Cerec Omnicam이 교두끼리의 거리가 가장 먼 변이를 보였고($-242.8{\mu}m$), CS3500이 가장 가까워지는 변이를 보였으며($312.5{\mu}m$), 다른 거상 높이 보다 3 mm 이개 그룹에서 유의하게 변이가 컸다(P < 0.01). 결론: 구강 스캐너 마다 협측 악간관계 스캔을 이용해 상하악 교합 관계를 재현하는 정확성이 달랐다.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of the interocclusal relationship between upper and lower teeth according to the buccal interocclusal record scan using various intraoral scanner systems. Materials and Methods: The upper and lower full arch Models with normal occlusion were scanned with 5 intraoral scanners (Cerec Omnicam, CS3500, iTero, Trios, True Definition). Buccal interocclusal record scan was taken only at the left side while occlusion was intentionally raised by 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm with metal cylinder core embedded within polyvinylsiloxane bite registration material at the right molar region. The superimposition analysis was done to evaluate overall three-dimensional deviation and cross-section analysis was done to evaluate the degree and the direction of deviation of interocclusal relationship. Results: From the superimposition study, Cerec Omnicam showed the least deviation ($165.5{\mu}m$) and CS3500 ($369.0{\mu}m$) showed the largest (P < 0.01). And the deviation was greater in 3, 4, 2 mm group than 1 mm (P < 0.01). From the cross-section study, Cerec Omnicam showed the farthest deviation ($-242.8{\mu}m$) and CS3500 showed the closest deviation ($312.5{\mu}m$) and a significantly high value was shown in 3 mm group. Conclusion: Every intraoral scanner has different accuracy in reproducing interocclusal relationship.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Duret F, Blouin JL, Duret B. CAD-CAM in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;117:715-20. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1988.0096
  2. Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Chairside computer-aided direct ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 1989;20:329-39.
  3. Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F. The Cerec system: computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting. Quintessenz 1987;38:457-70.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:542-51.
  7. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
  8. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:111-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x
  9. Ghazal M, Kern M. Mounting casts on an articulator using interocclusal records. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:408-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60247-4
  10. Michalakis KX, Pissiotis A, Anastasiadou V, Kapari D. An experimental study on particular physical properties of several interocclusal recording media. Part I: consistency prior to setting. J Prosthodont 2004;13:42-6.
  11. Michalakis KX, Pissiotis A, Anastasiadou V, Kapari D. An experimental study on particular physical properties of several interocclusal recording media. Part II: linear dimensional change and accompanying weight change. J Prosthodont 2004;13:150-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04024.x
  12. Lassila V. Comparison of five interocclusal recording materials. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:215-8.
  13. Muller J, Gotz G, Horz W, Kraft E. An experimental study on the influence of the derived casts on the accuracy of different recording materials. Part II: polyether, acrylic resin, and corrected wax wafer. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:389-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90225-2
  14. Muller J, Gotz G, Horz W, Kraft E. An experimental study on the influence of the derived casts on the accuracy of different recording materials. Part I: plaster, impression compound, and wax. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:263-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90192-F
  15. Ghazal M, Albashaireh ZS, Kern M. The ability of different materials to reproduce accurate records of interocclusal relationships in the vertical dimension. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35:816-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01870.x
  16. Skurnik H. Accurate interocclusal records. J Prosthet Dent 1969;21:154-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(69)90088-2
  17. Balthazar-Hart Y, Sandrik JL, Malone WF, Mazur B, Hart T. Accuracy and dimensional stability of four interocclusal recording materials. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:586-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90416-9
  18. Fattore L, Malone WF, Sandrik JL, Mazur B, Hart T. Clinical evaluation of the accuracy of interocclusal recording materials. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:152-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90251-8
  19. Balthazar YM, Ziebert GJ, Donegan SJ. Effect of interocclusal records on transverse axis position. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:804-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(84)80008-6
  20. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Kinderknecht KE. Accuracy of three interocclusal recording materials used to mount a working cast. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:265-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90465-0
  21. Vergos VK, Tripodakis AP. Evaluation of vertical accuracy of interocclusal records. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:365-8.
  22. Frank E, Frank S. Bite registration in Cerec and in lab. Int J Comput Dent 2012;15:149-158.
  23. Freilich MA, Altieri JV, Wahle JJ. Principles for selecting interocclusal records for articulation of dentate and partially dentate casts. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:361-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90346-C
  24. Ruge S, Quooss A, Kordass B. Variability of closing movements, dynamic occlusion, and occlusal contact patterns during mastication. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:119-27.
  25. Ruge S, Kordass B. 3D-VAS-initial results from computerized visualization of dynamic occlusion. Int J Comput Dent 2008;11:9-16.
  26. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:11-28.
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21.
  30. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
  31. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  32. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
  33. Sorensen JA. Accuracy of Full-Arch Scanning With Intra-Oral Scanners. Available from: https://iadr.abstractarchives.com/abstract/43am-185064/accuracy-of-full-arch-scanning-with-intra-oral-scanners (updated 2018 Mar 16).
  34. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y
  35. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy in dental medicine, a new way to measure trueness and precision. J Vis Exp 2014 Apr 29;(86).
  36. Keeling AJ, Brunton PA, Holt RJ. Optical inter-oc-clusal records are repeatable and accurate. Available from: https://iadr.abstractarchives.com/abstract/14iags-188378/optical-interocclusal-records-arerepeatable-and-accurate (updated 2018 Mar 16).
  37. Solaberrieta E, Arias A, Brizuela A, Garikano X, Pradies G. Determining the requirements, section quantity, and dimension of the virtual occlusal record. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:52-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.013
  38. Solaberrieta E, Garmendia A, Brizuela A, Otegi JR, Pradies G, Szentpetery A. Intraoral digital impressions for virtual occlusal records: section quantity and dimensions. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:7173824.

피인용 문헌

  1. 치과용 모형의 모형 부착 과정에서 발생하는 오차에 대한 문헌 고찰 vol.59, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2021.59.1.146