• 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 Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.207-218
• /
• 1993

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reproducing accuracy of stone casts made from complete arch impressions using different impression materials. The impression materials studied were 1) polyether, 2) polysulfide, 3) polyvinyl siloxane, and 4) irreversible hydrocolloid. Impressions were made from a partially edentulous acrylic resin model with metal inserts in canine, first molar region bilaterally and mid palatal vault region. Each distance between 2 out of 5 meauring points was measured by using 3dimensional measuring machine. Impressions were poured at once with a type IV dental stone. Data were analyzed using t-test with a sample size of six. The results were as follow : 1. Polysulfide and polyether were significantly superior to polyvinyl siloxane and irreversible hydrocolloid in reproducing full arch model(p<0.05), but there were no statistical differences in amount of dimensional reproducing accuracy for full arch impression between polysulfide and polyether(p>0.05). 2. There were statistical differences in amount of dimensional reproducing accuracy between edentulous area and tooth bound area for polysulfide and polyether(p<0.05). but no statistical differences were observed for polyvinyl siloxane and irreversible hydrocolloid(p>0.05).

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.535-543
• /
• 1997

In order to compare the accuracy of impression technique using the addition silicone putty and improved heavy body material, impression were taken for the natural 6 maxillary anterior teeth, and for the metal mast model that has full arch shape with 4 cylindrical abutment teeth. Marginal gingiva was retracted by routine method using retraction cord, and two techniques were tried to compare the length of impression materials in the gingival sulcus. This was aimed to see the effect of viscosity and hydraulic pressure of impression materials for the subgingival impression. Impressions for the full arch-shaped metal master model were taken to compare the linear stability of the different impression materials and their related techniques. The conclusions were as belows : 1. The one-step impression technique showed longer extension of impression material in gingival sulcus than two-step impression technique. 2. High viscosity and hydraulic pressure of impression material were useful to take subgingival impression. 3. There was no statistically significant difference for the two-dimensional accuracy of impression technique, but two-step technique showed better trend than one-step technique.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.301-312
• /
• 1999

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of currently used elastomeric impression materials for complete arch impression taking. Five elastomers (Impregum, Permlastic, Express, Extrude, Examix) and one Irreversible hydrocolloid (Aroma-fine) were tested. For each material, 5 impressions were made of stainless steel model to which five tapered posts were attached. Custom trays were used for polyether and polysulfide impression materials, and putty/wash two step technique was used for addition polyvinylsiloxane impression materials. Improved stone mod els were poured to all impressions. Accuracy of the materials was assessed by measuring ten distances on stone dies poured from impressions of the master model. All measurements for master and improved stone models were made with three dimensional measuring machine. The results were as follows 1. The dimensional accuracy of polyether, extrude, and examix were significantly superior to poly-sulfide, exress, and alginate in reproducing full arch mode (p<0.05) 2. There were no statistical differences in dimensional accuracy for full arch impression between polyether extrude and examix (p>0.05). 3. there were no statistical differences in dimensional accuracy between polysulfide, express, and alginate(p>0.05). 4. There were no statistical differences between addition polyvinyl siloxane materials (p>0.05) 5. There were no statistical differences between anterior-posterior and lateral dimensional changes of all impression materials (p>0.05).

• 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 Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.179-188
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital intraoral scanners in a completely edentulous patient with angled and parallel implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 6 implants were placed at angulations of 0°, 5°, 0°, 0°, 15°, and 0° in regions #36, #34, #32, #42, #44, and #46, respectively, in a completely edentulous mandibular polyurethane model. Then, the study model created by connecting a scan body on the implants was scanned using a model scanner, and a 3D reference model was obtained. Three different intraoral scanners were used for digital impressions (PS group, TR group, and CS group, n = 10 in each group). The distances and angles between the scan bodies in these measurement groups were measured. RESULTS. While the Primescan (PS) impression group had the highest accuracy with 38 ㎛, the values of 104 ㎛ and 171 ㎛ were obtained with Trios 4 IOSs (TR) and Carestream 3600 (CS), respectively (P = .001). The CS scanner constituted the impression group with the highest deviation in terms of accuracy. In terms of dimensional differences in the angle parameter, a statistically significant difference was revealed among the mean deviation angle values according to the scanners (P < .001). While the lowest angular deviation was obtained with the PS impression group with 0.185°, the values of 0.499° and 1.250° were obtained with TR and CS, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected among the impression groups in terms of precision values (P > .05). CONCLUSION. A statistically significant difference was found among the three digital impression groups upon comparing the impression accuracy. Implant angulation affected the impression accuracy of the digital impression groups. The most accurate impressions in terms of both distance and angle deviation were obtained with the PS impression group.

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.617-623
• /
• 2012

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.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.1-3
• /
• 2010

BACKGROUND. Even though excellent impression materials are now available for making accurate replication for hard and soft tissue, the numerous dentists have faced lots of obstacles in making simultaneous impressions of multiple abutments. CASE DESCRIPTION. This article describes a modified method of tray fabrication using auto-polymerizing acrylic resin and impression technique for multiple prepared teeth in cases with limitations and difficulties in taking dental impressions. CLINICAL IMPLICATION. This segmental tray technique has several advantages, including higher impression quality, fewer impressions, and being more comfortable for the patient and less stressful for the clinician.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.17-25
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of definitive casts that are fabricated from digital intraoral impression and conventional impression technique. Methods: A master model(ANNA-4, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) 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 CS-3600 intraoral scanner(n=10). Six linear measurements were recorded between landmarks, directly on each of the stone models on two occasions by a single examiner. Measurements were made with a digital caliper to the nearest 0.01mm from manual models and with the software(Delcam PowerSHAPE) from the virtual models. The t-student test for paired samples and intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) were used for statistical analysis. Results: The measurement of two methods showed good reliability. The ICC of the two models were 0.88~0.91(stone model) and 0.94~0.99(digital model). The mean differences to master model for stone model and digital model were 0.10~0.14mm, and 0.14~0.20mm, respectively. Conclusion: The definitive casts obtained with digital intraoral technique model had significantly larger dimensions as compared to those of the stone model. However, the differences to the master model detected appear to provide enough accuracy and reliability for clinical application.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.205-215
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of three intraoral scanner (IOS) systems with three different dental arch widths. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three dental models with different intermolar widths (small, medium, and large) were attached to metal bars of different lengths (30, 40, and 50 mm). The bars were measured with a coordinate measuring machine and used as references. Three IOSs were compared: TRIOS 3 (TRI), True Definition (TD), and Dental Wings (DW). The relative length and angular deviation of both ends of the metal bars from the scan data set (n = 15) were calculated and analyzed. RESULTS. Comparing among scanners in terms of trueness, the relative length deviation of DW in the small (1.28%) and medium (1.08%) arches were significantly higher than TRI (0.46% and 0.48%) and TD (0.33% and 0.18%). The angular deviation of DW in the small (1.75°) and medium (1.83°) arches were also significantly greater than TRI (0.63° and 0.40°) and TD (0.55° and 0.89°). Comparing within scanner, the large arch of DW showed better accuracy than other arch sizes (P < .05). On the other hand, the larger arch of TD presented a greater tendency of angular deviation in terms of trueness. No significant differences were found in terms of trueness between the arch widths of TRI group. CONCLUSION. The different widths of the dental arches can affect the accuracy of some intraoral scanners in full arch scan.