• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.121-128
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the reliability and accuracy of measurements in digital models(CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC) compared to stone models. Methods: A master model(500B-1, Nissin Dental Product, Japan) with the prepared upper full arch tooth was used. Conventional impression and then stone model(n=10) were produced from this master model, and on the other hands, digital impressions were made with the CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC intra-oral scanner(n=10). One examiner measured two times the intercanine, intermolar distance, dental arch length. The stone model were measured using a digital caliper. The t-student test for paired samples and intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) were used for statistical analysis. Results: The measurement of two methods showed very good reliability. At the intra-examiner reliability of measurement, ICC at the stone and CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC model were 0.81 and 0.94. The mean difference between measurements made directly on the stone models and those made on the CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC model was 0.20~0.28mm, and was statistically significant(P=0.001). Conclusion: These in vitro studies show that accuracy of the digital impression is similar to that of the conventional impression. These results will have to be confirmed in further clinical studies.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.211-218
• /
• 2011

Purpose: The purpose of the study was a quantitative evaluation of common errors in digital impression procedure using CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC system. Methods: Two-hundreds digital impression data comprising 174 inlays, 26 onlays by CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC in-office CAD/CAM system were obtained from a dental clinic. One evaluator assessed errors of the digital impression data and divided into five categories of errors: inappropriate scanner positioning (ISP), improper handling with a scanner (IHS), irregular powder arrangement (IPA), improper cavity preparation (ICP), and insufficient scanned data (ISD). Results: The most common errors were IPA(21%), and ISP and ISD were followed by 17% respectively. IHS was found in 14.5% of all digital impression data. ICP comprising only 6.5% was the rarest. Conclusion: Most errors were due to inaccurate manipulation with an intraoral scanner or improper cavity preparation for scanning. A deliberate manipulation to prevent common errors mentioned may deliver an optimal result in the digital impression procedure.

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.11 no.4
• /
• pp.299-303
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this case report was to present an example of an esthetic and functional rehabilitation of anterior teeth with tetracycline discoloration and minor morphological abnormality of a 39-year old female. A chairside computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system with CEREC AC was applied for the prosthetic procedure and all ceramic crowns made with lithum disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) restored the esthetic and functional features of sixteen anterior teeth successfully.