• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.1-13
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the fit of cast gold crowns fabricated from the conventional and the digital impression technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Artificial tooth in a master model and abutment teeth in ten patients were restored with cast gold crowns fabricated from the digital and the conventional impression technique. The forty silicone replicas were cut in three sections; each section was evaluated in nine points. The measurement was carried out by using a measuring microscope and I-Soultion. Data from the silicone replica were analyzed and all tests were performed with ${\alpha}$-level of 0.05. RESULTS. 1. The average gaps of cast gold crowns fabricated from the digital impression technique were larger than those of the conventional impression technique significantly. 2. In marginal and internal axial gap of cast gold crowns, no statistical differences were found between the two impression techniques. 3. The internal occlusal gaps of cast gold crowns fabricated from the digital impression technique were larger than those of the conventional impression technique significantly. CONCLUSION. Both prostheses presented clinically acceptable results with comparing the fit. The prostheses fabricated from the digital impression technique showed more gaps, in respect of occlusal surface.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.389-400
• /
• 2007

Statement of problem. Use of the conventional dental impression procedure is problematic in patients who have difficulty opening their mouth, difficulty breathing through their nose or tendency to gag. Purpose. It is necessary to make individual trays more comfortable for patients during impression taking procedure. It was reported at the KAP Annual Meeting 2001 Seoul that an improved impression technique was suitable for this purpose. In this study, the accuracy of the improved dental impression method for implant was compared with the conventional dental impression method. Material and methods. An oral simulator was made from clear acrylic resin block which had similar form of edentulous ridge. For setting up the standard, five fixtures were installed on it. Study casts were made using two kinds of impression techniques. One was the conventional method that was taken using silicone impression material and an individual resin tray under connection of inter-fixture relation. The other was the improved method in which was the connection of the impression coping and the thermoformed polymethyl methacrylate tray. In addition, two different study casts were made from the improved impression body. The coordinates of the fixture on the study model were measured by three-dimensional coordinate measuring equipment. Then the distances between each fixture were calculated and compared with that of oral simulator. Accuracy of the each impression method was also assessed. Results. The differences of inter-fixture dimension between study casts and simulator in the improved impression technique showed $0.014{\pm}0.016mm$ and $0.017{\pm}0.022mm$, respectively and that of the conventional method was $0.017{\pm}0.014mm$. There was no significant difference between the improved impression technique and conventional method. Conclusion. The improved impression technique is useful for multiple support implants.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.54 no.4
• /
• pp.379-386
• /
• 2016

Purpose: The present study aims at researching the subjective satisfaction of patients who have experienced both conventional impression taking and digital impression taking to measure the possibility of wide clinical application of digital impression. Materials and methods: The study surveyed 170 adult patients over the age of 20, between October 2015 and April 2016, who voluntarily consented to participation and who experienced both conventional impression and digital impression at five dental hospitals that use intraoral digital impression. A total of 128 surveys were used for data analysis, involving frequency analysis, multiple response frequency analysis, descriptive statistics, and contingency table analysis, with the significance level set at 0.05. Results: Responses on the reason for taking impressions using the digital method appeared in the order of 'for implant treatment' (43.8%), 'for crown treatment' (30.5%), and 'for inlay treatment' (15.6%). Patients satisfaction was higher for digital impression taking than conventional impression taking (P<.05). As the preferred choice of impression, digital impression (60.2%) was higher than conventional impression (11.7%). Responses on the reason for choosing digital impression taking appeared in the order of 'no vomiting reflex' (35.1%), 'reliability of 3D digital scanning' (33.8%), and 'short time' (33.8%). Conclusion: The patients preferred digital impression taking to conventional impression taking in terms of satisfaction.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.11 no.5
• /
• pp.262-270
• /
• 2019

PURPOSE. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal misfits of three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and digital impressions techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty brass canine and second premolar abutment preparations were fabricated by using a computer numerical control machine and were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=10) as follows: conventional impression group (Group Ci), Cerec Omnicam (Group Cdi), and 3shape TRIOS-3 (Group Tdi) digital impression groups. The laser-sintered metal frameworks were designed and fabricated with conventional and digital impressions. The marginal adaptation was assessed with a stereomicroscope at ${\times}30$ magnification. The data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and the independent simple t tests. RESULTS. A statistically significant difference was found between the frameworks fabricated by conventional methods and those fabricated by digital impression methods. Multiple comparison results revealed that the frameworks in Group Ci (average, $98.8{\pm}16.43{\mu}m$; canine, $93.59{\pm}16.82{\mu}m$; premolar, $104.10{\pm}15.02{\mu}m$) had larger marginal misfit values than those in Group Cdi (average, $63.78{\pm}14.05{\mu}m$; canine, $62.73{\pm}13.71{\mu}m$; premolar, $64.84{\pm}15.06{\mu}m$) and Group Tdi (average, $65.14{\pm}18.05{\mu}m$; canine, $70.64{\pm}19.02{\mu}m$; premolar, $59.64{\pm}16.10{\mu}m$) (P=.000 for average; P=.001 for canine; P<.001 for premolar). No statistical difference was found between the marginal misfits of canine and premolar abutment teeth within the same groups (P>.05). CONCLUSION. The three-unit frameworks fabricated with digital impression techniques showed better marginal fit compared to conventional impression techniques. All marginal misfit values were clinically acceptable.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.208-216
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to compare the precision of optical impression (Trios, 3Shape) versus that of conventional impression (Imprint IV, 3M-ESPE) with three different margins (shoulder, chamfer, and knife-edge) on Frasaco teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The sample comprised of 60 zirconia half-crowns, divided into six groups according to the type of impression and margin. Scanning electron microscopy enabled us to analyze the gap between the zirconia crowns and the Frasaco teeth, using ImageJ software, based on eight reproducible and standardized measuring points. RESULTS. No statistically significant difference was found between conventional impressions and optical impressions, except for two of the eight points. A statistically significant difference was observed between the three margin types; the chamfer and knife-edge finishing lines appeared to offer better adaptation results than the shoulder margin. CONCLUSION. Zirconia crowns created from optical impression and those created from conventional impression present similar adaptation. While offering identical results, the former have many advantages. In view of our findings, we believe the chamfer margin should be favored.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.236-249
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. The present study compared the accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The experimental models were divided into six groups depending on the implant location and the scanning span. Digital impressions were captured using the intraoral optical scanner TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Conventional impressions were taken with the monophase impression material based on addition-cured silicones, Honigum-Mono (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). A high-precision laboratory scanner D900 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to obtain digital data of resin models and stone casts. Surface tessellation language (STL) datasets from scanner were imported into the analysis software Geomagic Qualify 14 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA), and scan body deviations were determined through two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses. Each scan body was measured five times. The Sidak t test was used to analyze the experimental data. RESULTS. Implant position and scanning distance affected the impression accuracy. For a unilateral arch implant and the mandible models with two implants, no significant difference was observed in the accuracy between the digital and conventional implant impressions on scan bodies; however, the corresponding differences for trans-arch implants and mandible with six implants were extremely significant (P<.001). CONCLUSION. For short-span scanning, the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions did not differ significantly. For long-span scanning, the precision of digital impressions was significantly inferior to that of the traditional impressions.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.6
• /
• pp.460-467
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriate impression technique by analyzing the superimposition of 3D digital model for evaluating accuracy of conventional impression technique and digital impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty-four patients who had no periodontitis or temporomandibular joint disease were selected for analysis. As a reference model, digital impressions with a digital impression system were performed. As a test models, for conventional impression dual-arch and full-arch, impression techniques utilizing addition type polyvinylsiloxane for fabrication of cast were applied. 3D laser scanner is used for scanning the cast. Each 3 pairs for 25 STL datasets were imported into the inspection software. The three-dimensional differences were illustrated in a color-coded map. For three-dimensional quantitative analysis, 4 specified contact locations(buccal and lingual cusps of second premolar and molar) were established. For two-dimensional quantitative analysis, the sectioning from buccal cusp to lingual cusp of second premolar and molar were acquired depending on the tooth axis. RESULTS. In color-coded map, the biggest difference between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression was seen (P<.05). In three-dimensional analysis, the biggest difference was seen between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression and the smallest difference was seen between dual-arch and full-arch impression. CONCLUSION. The two- and three-dimensional deviations between intraoral scanner and dual-arch impression was bigger than full-arch and dual-arch impression (P<.05). The second premolar showed significantly bigger three-dimensional deviations than the second molar in the three-dimensional deviations (P>.05).

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.56 no.7
• /
• pp.366-374
• /
• 2018

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal fit of monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated form the conventional and the digital impression technique. Materials and methods : Ten patients were restored with monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated from the digital and the conventional impression technique. Before definitive insertion, silicone replicas were produced from all twenty crowns. The silicone replicas were cut in three sections; each section was evaluated at two points. The measurement was carried out by using a measuring microscope (Olympus BX 51) and I-Solution. Data from the silicone replica scores were analyzed by Shapiro-Wilk test for normal distribution and the t-test for equality of two population's mean. All tests were performed with ${\alpha}-level$ of 0.05. Results : The average marginal gaps of monolithic zirconia restorations were $133.81{\pm}36.46{\mu}m$ for the conventional impression technique, $90.07{\pm}9.47{\mu}m$ for the digital impression technique. No statistical differences were found between the two impression techniques Conclusion : Both prostheses presented clinically acceptable results with comparing the marginal fit.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.323-337
• /
• 2010

The objective of this study was to examine the availability of the new impression coping by comparing with conventional coping in implant pick-up impression technique. Five implant fixtures were installed on #14, 21, 23, 25, 27 in acrylic resin model. That model with 5 fixtures was standard model, which was divided 3 groups; using new flag type impression coping, conventional impression coping splinted with self-curing resin, conventional impression coping without splinting. We made metal circular cones for calculation 3-dimensional coordinates by attaching to implant fixtures or analogs. Three-dimensional relationships of each model were calculated. Data was analyzed by multiple ANOVA and Bonferroni. The accuracy of impression between using new flag type impression coping and conventional impression coping did not show differences in 3 - dimensional analysis.Within limitations of this study, the new flag type impression coping is available in implant pick-up impression technique.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.270-279
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the patients' perception, acceptance, and preference of the difference between a conventional impression and digital impression through questionnaire survey. Materials and Methods: Thirteen (6 male, 7 female) subjects who experienced both digital and conventional impression at the same day were enrolled in this study. Conventional impression were taken with polyvinylsiloxane and digital impression were performed using a newly developed intra-oral scanner. Immediately after the two impressions were made, a survey was conducted with the standardized questionnaires consisting of the following three categories; 1) general dental treatment 2) satisfaction of conventional impression 3) satisfaction of digital impression. The perceived source of satisfaction was evaluated using Likert scale. The distribution of the answers was assessed by percentages and statistical analyses were performed with the paired t-test, and P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were significant differences of the overall satisfaction between two impression methods (P < 0.05). Digital impression showed high satisfaction in less shortness of breath and odor to participants compared to conventional impression. The use of an oral scanner resulted in a discomfort of TMJ due to prolonged mouth opening and in lower score of the scanner tip size. Conclusion: It was confirmed that the preference for the digital impression using intraoral scanner is higher than the conventional impression. Most survey participants said they would recommend the digital impression to others and said they preferred it for future prosthetic treatment.