Browse > Article

The Influence of Different Gypsum Materials on the Accuracy from Complete Arch Digital Impression  

Kim, Ki-Baek (Department of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University)
Lee, Gyeong-Tak (Department of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University)
Kim, Hae-Young (Department of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University)
Kim, Jae-Hong (Department of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University)
Publication Information
Journal of dental hygiene science / v.12, no.6, 2012 , pp. 617-623 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study was performed to measure the accuracy of different gypsum materials by a white light dental scanner. A master model with the prepared lower full arch tooth was used. The type IV and scannable stone were used for 20 stone casts (10 casts each) duplicated a master model of mandible. The distance between the reference points were measured and analyzed by the Delcam $Copycad^{(R)}$ (Delcam Plc, UK) 3D graphic software. The t-student test for paired samples were used for statistical analysis. The mean differences to master model for type IV stone and scannable stone model were 0.29~0.56 mm, and 0.17~0.35 mm, respectively. There were statistical differences in dimensional accuracy for full arch impression between the master model and type IV/scannable stone (p<0.05). Two different gypsum materials showed clinically acceptable accuracies of full arch digital impression produced by them. Besides, in both gypsum materials, the differences to the master model detected appear to provide enough accuracy for clinical application.
Keywords
Artificial dental stone; Dental digital impression; Dimensional measurement accuracy; Scanner;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Tinschert J, et al.: Marginal fit of alumina-and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent 26: 367-374, 2001.
2 Rekow ED: High-technology innovations and limitations for restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 37: 513-524, 1993.
3 Christensen GJ: Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 140: 1301-1304, 2009.
4 Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D: Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 204: 505-511, 2008.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 May KB, et al.: Precision of fit: the procera all-ceram crown. J Prosthet Dent 80: 394-404, 1993.
6 Miyazaki T, et al.: A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 28: 44-56, 2009.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Khalid AA, Ayman E: The effect of adding a stone base on the accuracy of working casts using different types of dental stones. J Contemp Dent Pract 7: 575-586, 2006.
8 Anusavice KJ. Phillip's science of dental material. 11th ed. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp.621-654, 2003.
9 Millstein PL: Determining the accuracy of gypsum casts made from Type IV dental stone. J Oral Rehabil 19: 239-243, 1992.   DOI
10 Moser JB, Stone DG, Willoughby GM: Properties and characteristics of resin die material. J Prosthet Dent 34: 297-304, 1975.   DOI
11 Kasier DA, Nicholls JI: A study of distortion and surface hardness of improved artifical stone casts. J Prosthet Dent 36: 373-381, 1976.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Linke BA, Nicholls JI, Faucher RR: Distortion analysis of stone casts made from impression materials. J Prothet Dent 54: 794-802, 1985.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Gordon GE, Johnson Gh, Drennor DG: The effect of tray selection on the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. J Prothet Dent 63: 12-15, 1990.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Creed B, et al.: Comparison of the accuracy of linear measurement obtained from cone beam computerized tomography images and digital models. Semin Orthod 17: 49-56, 2011.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 American Dental Association: Council on dental materials, ANSI/ADA specification No. 25 for Dental Gypsum Products. Am Dent Assoc, Chicago, pp.640-644, 1987.
16 Duke PD, et al.: Study of the physical properties of type IV gypsum, resin-containing and epoxy die materials. J Prosthet Dent 83: 466-473, 2000.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Stevens DR, et al.: 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: 794-803, 2006.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Delong R, et al.: Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res 90: 434-440, 2003.
19 Christensen GJ: The state of fixed prosthodontics impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 136: 343- 346, 2006.
20 Santoro M, et al.: Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124: 101-105, 2003.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Keating AP, et al.: A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35: 191-201, 2008.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Quimby ML, et al.: The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod 74: 298-303, 2004.
23 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: 301-306, 2003.