• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.57 no.9
• /
• pp.524-528
• /
• 2019

With the advances of CAD-CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) technology, the field of modern clinical dentistry has been dramatically changed. The first step in the digital workflow for tooth-supported dental prosthesis is a data acquisition with intraoral digital or conventional impression techniques. For the accuracy of intraoral digital impression data, the basic principles of conventional impression should be applied. It is necessary to obtain a good visibility with properly-dried field and well-exposed margin of the prepared abutment. Currently, the equi- or supra-gingival finish line can be recommended as an indication for intraoral digital impression. The scan data are generally exported to '.stl' file format, which has only morphological information of black and whitem while '.obj' file format can store data on color and texture.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Dental Administration
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.84-92
• /
• 2022

Impression taking is one of the most frequently performed tasks within the legal scope of dental hygienists. This study aims to compare traditional impression and digital impression taking in various aspects with dental hygienists who have experience using digital intraoral scanners. A total of 61 subjects were included in this analysis. Traditional and digital impression taking were compared, and the perception of intraoral scanners was classified into four factors through exploratory factor analysis. After a normality test of the main variables was performed, a non-parametric test was performed. In terms of the adequacy of the size of the tool inserted into the oral cavity, traditional impression taking was more positive, and there was no significant difference in the precision of impression taking, fit of the prosthesis, and time efficiency. In contrast, the digital intraoral scanner was positive in terms of reducing nausea. In the comparison between the items of the digital intraoral scanner, relatively low satisfaction was shown in terms of convenience of use. This study compared traditional impression taking based on the experience of dental hygienists using oral scanners. It is hoped that this will be one step closer to universalization. In addition, appropriate training on how to use them should be provided.

• 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 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.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.52 no.6
• /
• pp.354-362
• /
• 2014

With the development of digital dentistry, various intra-oral scanners which acquire intraoral image without conventional impression taking and stone pouring steps have been introduced. Fixed dental prostheses such as inlay, onlay, crown, and bridge fabricated by CAD/CAM technique combined with digital impressions is getting popular due to the recent rapid progress of digital impression taking system. In comparison with traditional prosthetic procedure, the advantages of intraoral image acquiring and CAD/CAM technique are as follows; the omission of conventional impression materials, reduced workflow step, and increased efficiency by online communication with clinic and laboratory. This review article covers some opinions about the suitable scanning procedures for the various prosthodontic treatments and the utilization of digital intraoral scanner and CAD/CAM system.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.6
• /
• pp.315-332
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. This study aimed to investigate whether the accuracy of intraoral scanners is influenced by different scanning strategies in an in vitro setting, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 standard. The following PICOS approach was used: population, tooth impressions; intervention, the use of intraoral scanners with scanning strategies different from the manufacturer's instructions; control, the use of intraoral scanners following the manufacturers' requirements; outcome, accuracy of intraoral scanners; type of studies, in vitro. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across various databases including Embase, SciELO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were based on in vitro studies that reported the accuracy of digital impressions using intraoral scanners. Analysis was performed using Review Manager software (version 5.3.5; Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Global comparisons were made using a standardized mean difference based on random-effect models, with a significance level of α = 0.05. RESULTS. The meta-analysis included 15 articles. Digital impression accuracy significantly improved under dry conditions (P < 0.001). Moreover, trueness and precision were enhanced when artificial landmarks were used (P ≤ 0.02) and when an S-shaped pattern was followed (P ≤ 0.01). However, the type of light used did not have a significant impact on the accuracy of the digital intraoral scanners (P ≥ 0.16). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of digital intraoral scanners can be enhanced by employing scanning processes using artificial landmarks and digital impressions under dry conditions.

• Journal of Korean society of Dental Hygiene
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.33-44
• /
• 2019

Objectives: To investigate how dental hygienists who have never used a digital oral scanner perceive the impression acquisition and evidence needed for prosthesis planning by using a digital oral scanner. Methods: From July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, subjects from Daegu, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea, were selected. The purpose of the study was described to dental hygienists who had never used a digital intraoral scanner. Questionnaires were distributed to the students selected. Of the 137 questionnaires distributed, 93 were used in the analysis after excluding 44 completed questionnaires that had errors or missing answers. Results: Of the respondents, 33.7% (36/93) were aged ${\geq}30$ years, 68.8% graduated from a 3-year vocational college course, 33.5% were aged ${\geq}33$ years, and 61.3%. At present, our center has the largest number of clinics (92.5%). The difficulty of impression taking using the digital oral scanner significantly differed (p<0.05) according to age and current occupation (p<0.05). Impression taking using a digital oral scanner significantly affected the present workflow of dental hygienists and their interest in sharing information about future use of digital oral scanner (p<0.01). Conclusions: If more routes are available to access digital intraoral scanners and more systems are developed for clinical use, the digital intraoral scanner could become digitized in the dental system; thereby, the existing impressions could be replaced with digitized impressions. With digital intraoral scanners, the expansion of the business of dental hygiene can be expected.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.53 no.3
• /
• pp.234-243
• /
• 2015

Developing of digital technique, it is possible to fabricate implant prostheses for edentulous area using intraoral 3-dimentional information throughout implant diagnosis and treatment process. It is being changed that from the method using CAD/CAM, producing prostheses by model scanning after conventional impression and model processing, to the method of fabricating implant provisional restorations and customized abutments by digital impression after connecting digital impression copings (scanbody) and implant fixtures without models. But, this digital method has not been actively used for implant prostheses not yet. Specially, it is short of intraoral digital impression cases for immediate provisional restorations of the maxillary anterior implants. The gingival contour impression of maxillary anterior area is very important for esthetic restorations. Accordingly, in this case report, the using a digital impression coping (scanbody) and digital impression by CEREC Omnicam (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) or Trios (3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) were introduced for immediate provisional restorations in 3 cases needed a single implant restoration in maxillary anterior area. The clinical results were satisfactory on the convenience and accuracy of digital impression technique and the good esthetics of final restorations.

• 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.

• 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.