The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Trueness and precision of scanning abutment impressions and stone models according to dental CAD/CAM evaluation standards

  • Jeon, Jin-Hun (Department of Dental Technology, Medical Campus, Kyung-Dong University) ;
  • Hwang, Seong-Sig (Department of Dental Technology, Medical Campus, Kyung-Dong University) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Hwan (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Woong-Chul (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University)
  • Received : 2017.10.14
  • Accepted : 2018.05.08
  • Published : 2018.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of the present study was to compare scanning trueness and precision between an abutment impression and a stone model according to dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) evaluation standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS. To evaluate trueness, the abutment impression and stone model were scanned to obtain the first 3-dimensional (3-D) stereolithography (STL) file. Next, the abutment impression or stone model was removed from the scanner and re-fixed on the table; scanning was then repeated so that 11 files were obtained for each scan type. To evaluate precision, the abutment impression or stone model was scanned to obtain the first 3-D STL file. Without moving it, scanning was performed 10 more times, so that 11 files were obtained for each scan type. By superimposing the first scanned STL file onto the other STL files one by one, 10 color-difference maps and reports were obtained; i.e., 10 experimental scans per type. The independent t-test was used to compare root mean square (RMS) data between the groups (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The $RMS{\pm}SD$ values of scanning trueness of the abutment impression and stone model were $22.4{\pm}4.4$ and $17.4{\pm}3.5{\mu}m$, respectively (P<.012). The $RMS{\pm}SD$ values of scanning precision of the abutment impression and stone model were $16.4{\pm}2.9$ and $14.6{\pm}1.6{\mu}m$, respectively (P=.108). CONCLUSION. There was a significant difference in scanning trueness between the abutment impression and stone model, as evaluated according to dental CAD/CAM standards. However, all scans showed high trueness and precision.

Keywords

References

  1. Jeong ID, Kim WC, Park J, Kim CM, Kim JH. Ceramic molar crown reproducibility by digital workflow manufacturing: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:252-6. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.252
  2. 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.
  3. Carbajal Mejía JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani H. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:392-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.021
  4. González de Villaumbrosia P, Martínez-Rus F, García-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradíes G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116: 543-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.025
  5. Jeon JH, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of 3D white light scanning of abutment teeth impressions: evaluation of trueness and precision. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:468-73. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.6.468
  6. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024
  7. Lee JJ, Jeong ID, Park JY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:253-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.021
  8. Bramanti E, Cervino G, Lauritano F, Fiorillo L, D'Amico C, Sambataro S, Denaro D, Famà F, Ierardo G, Polimeni A, Cicciu M. FEM and von Mises analysis on prosthetic crowns structural elements: Evaluation of different applied materials. Sci World J 2017;2017:1029574.
  9. Cicciu M, Cervino G, Bramanti E, Lauritano F, Lo Gudice G, Scappaticci L, Rapparini A, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015;2015:943839.
  10. Cicciù M, Bramanti E, Cecchetti F, Scappaticci L, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM and Von Mises analyses of different dental implant shapes for masticatory loading distribution. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2014;7:1-10.
  11. Cicciú M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:817-25.
  12. ISO 12836. Dentistry - Digitizing devices for CAD/CAM systems for indirect dental restorations - Test methods for assessing accuracy. International Standards for Organization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Available from: http://www.iso.org/iso/store.html Accessed March 2, 2016.
  13. Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:755-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.007
  14. Jeon JH, Lee KT, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC. White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5:452-6. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.4.452
  15. Kim DY, Lee HN, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Evaluation of marginal and internal gaps in single and three-unit metal frameworks made by micro-stereolithography. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:239-43. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.239
  16. Lee WS, Lee DH, Lee KB. Evaluation of internal fit of interim crown fabricated with CAD/CAM milling and 3D printing system. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:265-70. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.265
  17. Kournetas N, Spintzyk S, Schweizer E, Sawada T, Said F, Schmid P, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Eliades G, Rupp F. Comparative evaluation of topographical data of dental implant surfaces applying optical interferometry and scanning electron microscopy. Dent Mater 2017;33:e317-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.04.020
  18. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1461-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027
  19. ISO-5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: General principles and definitions. International Standards for Organization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 1994. Available at: http://www.iso.org/ iso/store.html. Accessed December 22, 2015.
  20. 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
  21. Lauritano F, Runci M, Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Bramanti E, Cicciù M. Three-dimensional evaluation of different prosthesis retention systems using finite element analysis and the Von Mises stress test. Minerva Stomatol 2016;65:353-67.
  22. Jeon JH, Jung ID, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scans of stone models and impressions using a blue LED scanner. Dent Mater J 2015;34:686-91. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-347
  23. Cicciu M, Risitano G, Maiorana C, Franceschini G. Parametric analysis of the strength in the "Toronto" osseous-prosthesis system. Minerva Stomatol 2009;58:9-23.
  24. Jeon JH, Kim DY, Lee JJ, Kim JH, Kim WC. Repeatability and reproducibility of individual abutment impression, assessed with a blue light scanner. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8: 214-8. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.3.214
  25. Kim DY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Reproducibility of different arrangement of resin copings by dental microstereolithography: Evaluating the marginal discrepancy of resin copings. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:260-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.007
  26. Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, Fabianelli A, Gloria A, Martorelli M, Lanzotti A, Watts DC. Mechanical behavior of bulk direct composite versus block composite and lithium disilicate indirect Class II restorations by CAD-FEM modeling. Dent Mater 2017;33:690-701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.03.014
  27. Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, Garcia-Godoy F, Gloria A, Lanzotti A, Maietta S, Martorelli M. The effects of cavity-margin-angles and bolus stiffness on the mechanical behavior of indirect resin composite class II restorations. Dent Mater 2017; 33:e39-47.
  28. Li J, Yuan P, Chang CM, Ho DC, Lo YF, Shen S, Kim D, Teichgraeber JF, Alfi DM, Gateno J, Xia JJ. New approach to establish an object reference frame for dental arch in computer-aided surgical simulation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46:1193-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.04.012
  29. Lebon N, Tapie L, Duret F, Attal JP. Understanding dental CAD/CAM for restorations - dental milling machines from a mechanical engineering viewpoint. Part A: chairside milling machines. Int J Comput Dent 2016;19:45-62.
  30. Kim CM, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Threedimensional evaluation of the reproducibility of presintered zirconia single copings fabricated with the subtractive method. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:237-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.027
  31. Jeon JH, Choi BY, Kim CM, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:549- 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.019
  32. Vecsei B, Joós-Kovács G, Borbély J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:177-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.07.001
  33. Moser M, Schmid R, Schindel R, Hildebrandt G. Patientspecific polymethylmethacrylate prostheses for secondary re- construction of large calvarial defects: A retrospective feasibility study of a new intraoperative moulding device for cranioplasty. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2017;45:295-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.11.016
  34. Kim DS, Lee B, Banks SA, Hong K, Jang YH. Comparison of dynamics in 3D glenohumeral position between primary dislocated shoulders and contralateral healthy shoulders. J Orthop 2017;14:195-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2016.12.014
  35. Liu L, Li H, Cui Y, Li R, Meng F, Ye Z, Zhang X. Calcium channel opening rather than the release of ATP causes the apoptosis of osteoblasts induced by overloaded mechanical stimulation. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;42:441-54. https://doi.org/10.1159/000477592
  36. Martorelli M, Ausiello P, Morrone R. A new method to assess the accuracy of a Cone Beam Computed Tomography scanner by using a non-contact reverse engineering technique. J Dent 2014;42:460-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.018
  37. Flügge 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
  38. Persson AS, Andersson M, Odén A, Sandborgh-Englund G. Computer aided analysis of digitized dental stone replicas by dental CAD/CAM technology. Dent Mater 2008;24:1123-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.01.008
  39. Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 2007;35:903-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.08.008

Cited by

  1. A Comparative Study of the Fitness and Trueness of a Three-Unit Fixed Dental Prosthesis Fabricated Using Two Digital Workflows vol.9, pp.14, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142778
  2. The effect of the improperly scanned scan body images on the accuracy of virtual implant positioning in computer-aided design software vol.12, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.3.107
  3. Validation of the Accuracy of Postoperative Analysis Methods for Locating the Actual Position of Implants: An In Vitro Study vol.10, pp.20, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207266
  4. Effect of rinsing time on the accuracy of interim crowns fabricated by digital light processing: An in vitro study vol.13, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.1.24