• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.195-203
• /
• 2018

This study was conducted to investigate the types and methods of dental impression materials used in dental clinics in south Korea, the questionnaire was surveyed by a self-administered method for one dentist in a one dental clinic, the collected data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 20. The most frequently used addition silicone impression materials were used in most dental treatment. It was confirmed that the method of taking impression materials having different flow properties(light body and heavy body) was most preferred at one time, also, the implant impression taking method was the most preferred for two rubber impression materials with different flow properties, both direct and indirect. There were statistically significant differences in age and clinical experience between the methods of impression taking of casting restorations and prosthetic according to general characteristics. These results are expected to be helpful for the development of theoretical and practical work based on the basic data for impression material development and research and the preference of impression materials required for dental professional in clinical practice.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.74-80
• /
• 2016

Even though an immediate denture (ID) is a practical prosthesis, fabricating an ID may be challenging, as unexpected removals of periodontally compromised teeth may occur during an impression procedure. This clinical report introduces a digital approach to a maxillary ID. An intraoral scanner was applied to prevent accidental extraction. A physical cast and a resin pattern of a framework were fabricated with rapid prototyping technology. A proper border and retention was also achieved by an altered cast impression.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.37-42
• /
• 2013

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of dental white light scanner. Methods: The impression(Zerosil, Dreve, Germany) were digitized in white light scanner(Identica, Medit, Korea) to create 3-dimensional surface-models. The distribution of the discrepancies between the number of points in the corresponding CRM models and the point clouds in the others were measured by a matching-software(PowerInspect 2012, Delcam Plc, UK). The discriptive statistics were used for statistical analysis(SPSS 20.0). Results: The measurement of repeatablity showed very good reliability. The mean(SD) discrepancy value on the white light scanner digital models was 8.7(0.67) ${\mu}m$, based on SD and absolute mean values. Conclusion: These in vitro studies showed that repeatability of dental white light scanner is high reliability. These results can be confirmed in further clinical studies.

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.15 no.5
• /
• pp.673-678
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of linear measurements in digital models compared to master model. A master model (ANKA-4; Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with the prepared upper full arch tooth was used. Four linear measurements were recorded between landmarks, directly on the master model and the digital models by a single examiner. Measurements were made with a digital caliper from manual model and with the software from the virtual models. The t-test for paired samples and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used for statistical analysis. The measurement of two methods showed good reliability. The mean differences between master and digital model were 0.06~0.12 mm. These in vitro studies show that accuracy and reliability of the digital impression is similar to that of the gold standard. Therefore digital impression was also considered to be a acceptable for placement clinically.

• Journal of Korean society of Dental Hygiene
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.1082-1089
• /
• 2012

Objectives : The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of digitized stone models, impression materials compared to the master model and the reliability of the computer aided analysis. Methods : A master model(500B-1, Nissin dental product, Japan) with the prepared lower full arch tooth was used. Ten vinyl polysiloxane impressions(Examix$^{(R)}$, GC Industrial Corp, Japan) of master model were taken and type IV stone(aesthetic-base gold$^{(R)}$, Dentona, Germany) were poured in stone models. The linear distance between the reference points were measured and analyzed on the Delcam Copycad$^{(R)}$(Delcam plc, UK). The t-student test for paired samples was used for statistical analysis. Results : The mean differences to master model for stone model and impression material were 0.11~0.19mm, and 0.19~0.29mm, respectively. There were statistical differences in dimensional accuracy for full arch impression between master model and stone model/impressions(p<.05). Conclusions : Two different scanning methods showed clinically acceptable accuracy of full arch digital impression produced by them. These results will have to be confirmed in further clinical studies.

• 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.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.6 no.1
• /
• pp.1-7
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. The accuracy of a gypsum model (GM), which was taken using a conventional silicone impression technique, was compared with that of a polyurethane model (PM), which was taken using an iTero$^{TM}$ digital impression system. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The maxillary first molar artificial tooth was selected as the reference tooth. The GMs were fabricated through a silicone impression of a reference tooth, and PMs were fabricated by a digital impression (n=9, in each group). The reference tooth and experimental models were scanned using a 3 shape convince$^{TM}$ scan system. Each GM and PM image was superimposed on the registered reference model (RM) and 2D images were obtained. The discrepancies of the points registered on the superimposed images were measured and defined as GM-RM group and PM-RM group. Statistical analysis was performed using a Student's T-test (${\alpha}=0.05$). RESULTS. A comparison of the absolute value of the discrepancy revealed a significant difference between the two groups only at the occlusal surface. The GM group showed a smaller mean discrepancy than the PM group. Significant differences in the GM-RM group and PM-RM group were observed in the margins (point a and f), mesial mid-axial wall (point b) and occlusal surfaces (point c and d). CONCLUSION. Under the conditions examined, the digitally fabricated polyurethane model showed a tendency for a reduced size in the margin than the reference tooth. The conventional gypsum model showed a smaller discrepancy on the occlusal surface than the polyurethane model.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.55-63
• /
• 2019

The aim of this article was to review various methods used to evaluate the accuracy of digital dental models. When evaluating the accuracy of digital models, the errors can be reduced by educating examiners and using artificial landmarks. The accuracy evaluation methods of digital dental models are divided into linear measurement, 2-dimensional cross-sectional analysis, and 3-dimensional best fit measurement. As the technology of scanners develops, many studies have been conducted to compare the accuracy of digital impression and conventional impression. According to improvement of scan technologies and development of 3-dimensional model analysis software, the ability to evaluate the accuracy of digital models is becoming more efficient. In this article, we describe the methods for evaluating the accuracy of a digital model and investigate effective accuracy analysis methods for each situation.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.57-65
• /
• 2024

PURPOSE. The aim of this stuldy was to compare the clinical marginal fit of CAD-CAM inlays obtained from intraoral digital impression or addition silicone impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study included 31 inlays for prosthodontics purposes of 31 patients: 15 based on intraoral digital impressions (DI group); and 16 based on a conventional impression technique (CI group). Inlays included occlusal and a non-occlusal surface. Inlays were milled in ceramic. The inlay-teeth interface was replicated by placing each inlay in its corresponding uncemented clinical preparation and taking interface impressions with silicone material from occlusal and free surfaces. Interface analysis was made using white light confocal microscopy (WLCM) (scanning area: 694 × 510 ㎛²) from the impression samples. The gap size and the inlay overextension were measured from the microscopy topographies. For analytical purposes (i.e., 95-%-confidence intervals calculations and P-value calculations), the procedure REGRESS in SUDAAN was used to account for clustering (i.e., multiple measurements). For p-value calculation, the log transformation of the dependent variables was used to normalize the distributions. RESULTS. Marginal fit values for occlusal and free surfaces were affected by the type of impression. There were no differences between surfaces (occlusal vs. free). Gap obtained for DI group was 164 ± 84 ㎛ and that for CI group was 209 ± 104 ㎛, and there were statistical differences between them (p = .041). Mean overextension values were 60 ± 59 ㎛ for DI group and 67 ± 73 ㎛ for CI group, and there were no differences between then (p = .553). CONCLUSION. Digital impression achieved inlays with higher clinical marginal fit and performed better than the conventional silicone materials.