• 한국융합학회논문지
• /
• 제9권5호
• /
• pp.69-75
• /
• 2018

본연구의 목적은 치과위생사의 디지털 구강스캐너 사용에 따른 체계적이고 융합적인 교육 요구도를 조사한 것이다. 치과 병 의원의 치과위생사를 대상으로 온라인 설문을 하여 응답한 127명의 수집된 자료를 SPSS 24.0 프로그램을 통해 빈도분석, t-test, one way ANOVA, 상관관계를 사용하여 산출하였다. 병원 내 디지털 구강스캐너 활용기간은 '1년 미만' 78.7%, 관련 교육경험 유무는 '없다'가 58.3%로 높게 나왔으며, 디지털 구강스캐너 임상활용은 77.4%가 사용하고 있다고 응답하였고, 디지털 구강스캐너 교육과 관련하여 61.4%가 교육이 필요하다고 응답하였다. 이러한 결과는 디지털 구강스캐너가 빠르게 치과 병 의원에 도입되고는 있으나, 체계적인 교육은 이루어지지 않고 있다는 것을 반영하고, 이에 본 논문은 디지털 구강스캐너의 교육 필요성이 인지되는 기본 자료로 연구결과가 활용되기를 기대한다.

• 대한치과의료관리학회지
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• 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.

• 대한소아치과학회지
• /
• 제49권1호
• /
• pp.57-64
• /
• 2022

콘빔 전산화 단층촬영(CBCT)은 치열을 왜곡시켜 추가 치열 이미지가 필요하다. 치열 이미지로 주로 사용되는 석고 모형을 대신해 구강 스캐너로 CBCT의 치열 이미지를 보완할 때의 임상적 활용 가능성을 평가하였다. 만 12 - 18세의 20명에게 상악에 대한 석고 모형, 구강 스캔 이미지, CBCT이미지를 획득하였다. 비교를 위해 두 종류의 구강 스캐너를 이용하였는데, 그 중 하나의 구강 스캐너로는 전악을 3분할하여 각각을 스캔한 후 이들을 병합해 전악 이미지를 획득하는 방법을 추가로 시행하였다. 구강 스캐너를 이용해 얻은 가상 골격-치열 하이브리드 이미지를 석고 모형을 통해 얻은 이미지와 중첩하여 각 기준점에서의 좌표 값의 차이와 거리를 측정하였다. 결과적으로 구강 스캐너로 분할하여 스캔하는 방법을 시행했을 때 평균 거리 2 ㎛를 보여 가장 적게 나타났다. 구강 스캐너를 적절히 이용하면 가상 골격-치열 하이브리드 이미지를 위한 치열 이미지로 훌륭히 활용될 수 있을 것이다.

• Imaging Science in Dentistry
• /
• 제51권4호
• /
• pp.399-406
• /
• 2021

Purpose: This in vitro study measured and compared 3 intraoral scanners' accuracy (trueness and precision) with different span lengths. Materials and Methods: Three master casts were prepared to simulate 3 different span lengths (fixed partial dentures with 3, 4, and 5 units). Each master cast was scanned once with an E3 lab scanner and 10 times with each of the 3 intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Planmeca Emerald, and Primescan AC). Data were stored as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The differences between measurements were compared 3-dimensionally using metrology software. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance with post hoc analysis by the Tukey honest significant difference test for trueness and precision. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between the 3 intraoral scanners in trueness and precision (P<0.05). Primescan AC showed the lowest trueness and precision values(36.8 ㎛ and 42.0 ㎛;(39.4 ㎛ and 51.2 ㎛; and 54.9 ㎛ and 52.7 ㎛) followed by Trios 3 (38.9 ㎛ and 53.5 ㎛; 49.9 ㎛ and 59.1 ㎛; and 58.1 ㎛ and 64.5 ㎛) and Planmeca Emerald (60.4 ㎛ and 63.6 ㎛; 61.3 ㎛ and 69.0 ㎛; and 70.8 ㎛ and 74.3 ㎛) for the 3-unit, 4-unit, and 5-unit fixed partial dentures, respectively. Conclusion: Primescan AC had the best trueness and precision, followed by Trios 3 and Planmeca Emerald. Increasing span length reduced the trueness and precession of the 3 scanners; however, their values were within the accepted successful ranges.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제13권4호
• /
• 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.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.107-116
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. Several studies focused on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners in implant dentistry, but the data of inter-implant distances were not widely mentioned. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of distance between two implants on the surface distortion of scanned models generated by intra-oral scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three models with the distances between two fixed scan bodies of 7, 14, and 21 mm were fabricated and scanned with a highly precise D900L dental laboratory scanner as reference models. Fifteen scans were performed with TRIOS3 and CEREC Omnicam intra-oral scanners. Trueness, precision, and angle deviation of the test models were analyzed (α=.05). RESULTS. There was a significant difference among inter-implant distances in both intraoral scanners (P<.001). The error of trueness and precision increased with the increasing inter-implant length, while the angle deviation did not show the same trend. A significant difference in the angle deviation was found among the inter-implant distance. The greatest angle deviation was reported in the 14-mm group of both scanners (P<.05). In contrast, the lowest angle deviation in the 21-mm group of the TR scanner and the 7-mm of the CR scanner was reported (P<.001). CONCLUSION. The inter-implant distance affected the accuracy of intra-oral scanner. The error of trueness and precision increased along with the increasing distance between two implants. However, the distortions were not clinically significant. Regarding angle deviation, the clinically significant angle deviation may be possible when using intra-oral scanners in the partially edentulous arch.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제15권4호
• /
• 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 Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제11권6호
• /
• pp.331-340
• /
• 2019

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of three intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch and evaluate the feasibility of the assessment methodology for further in vivo analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A specific measurement pattern was fabricated and measured using a coordinate measuring machine for the assessment of control distances and angles. Afterwards, the pattern was placed and fixed in replica of an upper jaw for their subsequent scans (10 times) using 3 intraoral scanners, namely iTero Element1, Trios 3, and True Definition. 4 reference distances and 5 angles were measured and compared with the controls. Trueness and precision were assessed for each IOS: trueness, as the deviation of the measures from the control ones, while precision, as the dispersion of measurements in each reference parameter. These measurements were carried out using software for analyzing 3-dimensional data. Data analysis software was used for statistical and measurements analysis (α=.05). RESULTS. Significant differences (P<.05) were found depending on the intraoral scanner used. Best trueness values were achieved with iTero Element1 (mean from 10 ± 7 ㎛ to 91 ± 63 ㎛) while the worst values were obtained with Trios3 (mean from 42 ± 23 ㎛ to 174 ± 77 ㎛). Trueness analysis in angle measurements, as well as precision analysis, did not show conclusive results. CONCLUSION. iTero Element1 was more accurate than the current versions of Trios3 and True Definition. Importantly, the proposed methodology is considered reliable for analyzing accuracy in any dental arch length and valid for assessing both trueness and precision in an in vivo study.

• 대한치과의사협회지
• /
• 제58권4호
• /
• pp.194-205
• /
• 2020

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the inter-arch relationship of digital models generated using two types of intraoral scanners. Methods: In total, 34 plaster model samples were used. Two corresponding digital models were created using two types of intraoral scanners. A total of 15 variables were measured. The plaster model was directly measured using a digital caliper, while the digital models were measured using a software. The accuracy of the measurements was evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance and the Friedman test. Results: Among the 15 measurements, 6 measurements[Overjet, Overbite, DZ_11-41 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right central incisor and mandibular right central incisor), DZ_16-46 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right first molar and mandibular right first molar), DZ_13-33 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right canine and mandibular left canine), and DZ_23-43 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary left canine and mandibular right canine)]showed statistically significant differences, with DZ_23-43 showing the largest difference of 0.18 mm. The other measurements showed no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: Regardless of the type of scanner used for preparation, digital models can be used as clinically acceptable alternatives to conventional plaster models.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2022

Purpose: Intraoral scanners, desktop scanners, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) are being used in a complementary way for diagnosis and treatment planning. Limited patient-based results are available about dimensional reproducibility among different three-dimensional imaging systems. This study aimed to evaluate dimensional reproducibility among patient-derived digital models created from an intraoral scanner, desktop scanner, and two CBCT systems. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine arches from sixteen patients who were candidates for implant treatments were enrolled. Different types of CBCT systems (KCT and VCT) were used before and after the surgery. Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were taken on the enrolled arches after the healing period. Gypsum casts were fabricated and scanned with an intraoral scanner (CIOS) and desktop scanner (MDS). Four test groups of digital models, each from CIOS, MDS, KCT, and VCT, respectively, were compared to the reference gypsum cast group. For comparison of linear measurements, intercanine and intermolar widths and left and right canine to molar lengths were measured on individual gypsum cast and digital models. All measurements were triplicated, and the averages were used for statistics. Bland-Altman plots were drawn to assess the degree of agreement between each test group with the reference gypsum cast group. A linear mixed model was used to analyze the fixed effect of the test groups compared to the reference group (α=0.05). Result: The Bland-Altman plots showed that the bias of each test group was -0.07 mm for CIOS, -0.07 mm for MDS, -0.21 mm for VCT, and -0.25 mm for KCT. The linear mixed model did not show significant differences between the test and reference groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: The linear distances measured on the digital models created from CIOS, MDS, and two CBCT systems showed slightly larger than the references but clinically acceptable reproducibility for diagnosis and treatment planning.