• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.213-218
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The purpose of this study compared of reproducibility of prepared tooth impression scanning utilized with white and blue light scanners. Methods: To evaluate reproducibility with white and blue light scanners, the impression of premolar were rotated by $10^{\circ}{\sim}20^{\circ}$ and scanned. These data were compared with the first 3-D data (STL file), and the error sizes were measured (n=5). Independent t test was used to evaluation the reproducibility of impression of premolar with white versus blue light scanners through discrepancies of mean, RMS (${\alpha}=0.05$). Results: Discrepancies of mean with regard to reproducibility were $11.2{\mu}m$, $5.8{\mu}m$, respectively, with white and blue light scanners (p<0.047). And discrepancies of RMS with regard to reproducibility were $33.4{\mu}m$, $18.8{\mu}m$, respectively, with white and blue light scanners (p<0.045). Conclusion: Our results indicate a good reproducibility of prepared tooth impression digitized with blue light scanner more than that with white light scanner.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.210-217
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of the abutment angle using a blue light scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 0°, 6°, and 10° wax cast abutment dies were fabricated. Each of the silicone impression was produced using the replicable silicone. Each study die was constructed from the prepared replicable stone used for scans. 3-dimensional data was obtained after scanning the prepared study dies for the repeatability by using the blue light scanner. The prepared 3-dimensional data could have the best fit alignment using 3-dimensional software. For reproducibility, each abutment was used as the first reference study die, and then it was scanned five times per each. 3-dimensional software was used to perform the best fit alignment. The data obtained were analyzed using a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis H test (α=.05), post hoc Mann-Whitney U test, and Bonferroni correction (α=.017). RESULTS. The repeatability of 0°, 6°, and 10° abutments was 3.9, 4.4 and 4.7 ㎛, respectively. Among them, the 0° abutment had the best value while the 10° abutment showed the worst value. There was a statistically significant difference (P<.05). The reproducibility of 0°, 6°, and 10° abutments was 6.1, 5.5, and 5.3 ㎛, respectively. While the 10° abutment showed the best value, the 0° abutment showed the worst value. However, there was no statistically significant difference (P>.05). CONCLUSION. In repeatability, the 0° abutment showed a positive result. In reproducibility, the 10° abutment achieved a positive result.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.17-23
• /
• 2014

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the relative accuracy of digitized stone models of lower full arch, using two different scanning system. Methods: Replica stone models(N=20) were produced from lower arch acrylic model. Twenty digital models were made with the white light and blue LED($Medit^{(R)}$, Korea) scanner. Two-dimensional distance between the landmarks were measured on the Delcam $CopyCAD^{(R)}$(Delcam plc, UK). Independent samples t-test was applied for comparison of the groups. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software package(Statistical Package for Social Sciences for Windows, version 12.0). Results: The absolute disagreement between measurements made directly on the two different scanner-based dental digital models was 0.02~0.04mm, and was not statistically significant(P>0.05). Conclusion: The precision of the blue LED optical scanner was comparable with the digitization device, and relative accuracy was similar. However, there still is room for improvement and further standardization of dental CAD technologies.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.328-334
• /
• 2018

PURPOSE. To evaluate the reproducibility of scan-based abutments using a blue light model scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A wax cast abutment die was fabricated, and a silicone impression was prepared using a silicone material. Nine study dies were constructed using the prepared duplicable silicone, and the first was used as a reference. These dies were classified into three groups and scanned using a blue light model scanner. The first three-dimensional (3D) data set was obtained by scanning eight dies separately in the first group. The second 3D data set was acquired when four dies were placed together in the scanner and scanned twice in the second group. Finally, the third 3D data set was obtained when eight dies were placed together in the scanner and scanned once. These data were then used to define the data value using third-dimension software. All the data were then analyzed using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test (${\alpha}=.05$) and the post-hoc Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni's correction (${\alpha}=.017$). RESULTS. The means and standard deviations of the eight dies together were larger than those of the four dies together and of the individual die. Moreover, significant differences were observed among the three groups (P<.05). CONCLUSION. With larger numbers of abutments scanned together, the scan becomes more inaccurate and loses reproducibility. Therefore, scans of smaller numbers of abutments are recommended to ensure better results.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.65-71
• /
• 2020

Purpose: To know the transmittance of light when wearing shading goggles and to protect eyes from blue light emitted from dental scanner when using CAD/CAM works or inducing polymerization reactions of dental resin with curing unit and infrared light occurred when melting Dental precious metal and non-precious metal alloys. Methods: By measuring and comparing the average transmittances of blue light, visible light and infrared ight by using UV-Vis Spectrophotometer analysis measuring instrument, I compared 3 GREEN Color Goggles worn when casting Dental precious metal and non-precious metal alloys, and compared each of YELLOW, ORANGE Color Goggles worn when using Dental CAD/CAM scanners and Light Curing(LED) the Dental resin. Results: In blue light range, YELLOW Color Goggles are more effective than ORANGE Color Goggles. In infrared light range, No.12 Goggles are more effective than No.10 and No.11 Goggles. Conclusion: When wearing blue light shading goggles to avoid harmful blue light occurred in using dental scanner and curing light, and when wearing infrared light shading goggles to avoid harmful infrared light during casting, to avoid the Side Effects like transmittance rate of blue light and infrared light goggles becomes too high to block appropriate amount of harmful light or too low that causing lower image clarity.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.214-218
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. We assessed the repeatability and reproducibility of abutment teeth dental impressions, digitized with a blue light scanner, by comparing the discrepancies in repeatability and reproducibility values for different types of abutment teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. To evaluate repeatability, impressions of the canine, first premolar, and first molar, prepared for ceramic crowns, were repeatedly scanned to acquire 5 sets of 3-dimensional data via stereolithography (STL) files. Point clouds were compared and the error sizes were measured (n=10, per type). To evaluate reproducibility, the impressions were rotated by $10-20^{\circ}$ on the table and scanned. These data were compared to the first STL data and the error sizes were measured (n=5, per type). One-way analysis of variance was used to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the 3 types of teeth, and Tukey honest significant differences (HSD) multiple comparison test was used for post hoc comparisons (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The differences with regard to repeatability were 4.5, 2.7, and $3.1{\mu}m$ for the canine, premolar, and molar, indicating the poorest repeatability for the canine (P<.001). For reproducibility, the differences were 6.6, 5.8, and $11.0{\mu}m$ indicating the poorest reproducibility for the molar (P=.007). CONCLUSION. Our results indicated that impressions of individual abutment teeth, digitized with a blue light scanner, had good repeatability and reproducibility.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.21 no.5
• /
• pp.996-1003
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reliability of repeated measurements of several dental scanners. Blue-lighted scanners, white-light scanners and optical-type scanners are used in the study of repeatability in this study. The measurement results were calculated as root mean square (RMS) and the significance level was confirmed by applying the 1-way ANOVA statistical technique (𝛼=.05). According to the statistical analysis, the scanner with the largest RMS value was Z-opt group (38.2 ㎛. Next, D-white was 35.2 ㎛ and the group with the lowest RMS value was I-blue (34.1 ㎛). The comparison of RMS means between each group was not significant (p>.05). From this result, the blue light had the lowest error in repeatability of dental scanners, but no statistical significance. The conclusion of this study is that the study results are clinically acceptable.

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.226-231
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of model according to three types of dental scanner. A maxillary acrylic model was prepared and duplicated 10 times by silicone impression materials. Corresponding working casts were formed from scannable stone and got a 3-dimensional digital models using three different scanners. The distance of each measurement region was measured using vernier calipers and the respective program. One-way ANOVA and the Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc test (${\alpha}=0.05$) was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0. Overall, the stone cast is smaller than the digital models in measurement distance. And measuring point value of laser scanner showed the most similar values and measurement points value of digital vernier calipers. Digital model of white light scanner showed similar values in the measurement points value of the blue light scanner. In conclusion, the laser scanner showed the best accuracy among the three types of dental scanner. However, the difference between the digital models and the stone cast can be accommodated in making prostheses. Thereby, three types of dental scanner are available in a clinically acceptable range.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.9-15
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the maxillary three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) made using two CAD/CAM milling machines : DCM Group(Dentaim CAD/CAM milling machine), WCM Group(Wieland CAD/CAM milling machine). Methods: Each of 10 duplicate models was scanned by blue light scanner(Identica, Medit, Korea), and the three-unit FDPs (STL file) was designed using DelcamCAD. A total of 20 three-unit FDPs was fabricated, comprising 2 groups of 10 specimens each (shrinkage ratio is 1:1). The first three-unit FDPs STL file was used as a CAD reference model (CRM). Obtained STL files by scanning the inner surface of three-unit FDPs were convened into the point clouds-ASC II files. Discrepancies between the point clouds and CRM were measured by superimposition software. Statistical methods to analyze the data were used non-parametric method. The mean (SD) values were compared by a Mann-Whitney U-test. Type one error rate was set at 0.05. Results: WCM group had small discrepancies with $2.17{\mu}m$ of mean value compared to $4.44{\mu}m$ in DCM group. The accuracy values between the two groups showed a sratistically significant difference (Table 2, p<.05). Conclusion: The accuracy of the three-unit fixed dental prosthesis(FDPs) made of two CAD/CAM milling machines were statistically different. Accuracy with which the prosthesis made of WCM group was superior.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.294-302
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to verify the clinical-feasibility of additive manufacturing by comparing the accuracy of four different manufacturing methods for metal coping: the conventional lost wax technique (CLWT); subtractive methods with wax blank milling (WBM); and two additive methods, multi jet modeling (MJM), and micro-stereolithography (Micro-SLA). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty study models were created using an acrylic model with the maxillary upper right canine, first premolar, and first molar teeth. Based on the scan files from a non-contact blue light scanner (Identica; Medit Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea), thirty cores were produced using the WBM, MJM, and Micro-SLA methods, respectively, and another thirty frameworks were produced using the CLWT method. To measure the marginal and internal gap, the silicone replica method was adopted, and the silicone images obtained were evaluated using a digital microscope (KH-7700; Hirox, Tokyo, Japan) at 140X magnification. Analyses were performed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The mean marginal gaps and internal gaps showed significant differences according to tooth type (P<.001 and P<.001, respectively) and manufacturing method (P<.037 and P<.001, respectively). Micro-SLA did not show any significant difference from CLWT regarding mean marginal gap compared to the WBM and MJM methods. CONCLUSION. The mean values of gaps resulting from the four different manufacturing methods were within a clinically allowable range, and, thus, the clinical use of additive manufacturing methods is acceptable as an alternative to the traditional lost wax-technique and subtractive manufacturing.