• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the accuracy of single crowns based on the type of occlusal surface. Methods: A single crown wax pattern was fabricated in three types of occlusal surface. The prepared wax pattern was replicated with silicone, and stone was injected to create a stone model. The prepared specimens were scanned using a model scanner. Scans were classified into three groups, and each scan was performed six times to analyze the trueness and precision of a single crown. In addition, only the occlusal surface area was analyzed for trueness and precision. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test, a nonparametric test (α=0.05). Results: With regard to the trueness value of the occlusal scan area, the no occlusal tooth attrition (NA) group showed the largest error of 3.5 ㎛, and the complete occlusal tooth attrition (CA) group showed the lowest value of 3.1 ㎛. The NA group had the greatest precision, and the medium occlusal tooth attrition (MA) group and CA group showed a low precision value of 3.2 ㎛; the difference between the groups was statistically significant (α=0.05). In the color difference map, the CA group showed a lower error than the NA group. Conclusion: The occlusal surface with severe attrition had excellent accuracy, but the accuracy of the group without attrition was low. There were significant differences between groups, but clinically acceptable values were shown.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.45-55
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. This in vitro study investigates the effect of different post-rinsing times and methods on the trueness and precision of denture base resin manufactured through stereolithography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety clear photopolymer resin specimens were fabricated and divided into nine groups (n = 10) based on rinsing times and methods. All specimens were rinsed with 99% isopropanol alcohol for 5, 10, and 15 min using three methods-automated, ultrasonic cleaning, and hand washing. The specimens were polymerized for 30 min at 40℃. For trueness, the scanned intaglio surface of each SLA denture base was superimposed on the original standard tessellation language (STL) file using best-fit alignment (n = 10). For precision, the scanned intaglio surface of the STL file in each specimen group was superimposed across each specimen (n = 45). The root mean square error (RMSE) was measured, and the data were analyzed statistically through one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (α < .05). RESULTS. The 10-min automated group exhibited the lowest RMSE. For trueness, this was significantly different from specimens in the 5-min hand-washed group (P < .05). For precision, this was significantly different from those of other groups (P < .05), except for the 15-min automated and 15-min ultrasonic groups. The color map results indicated that the 10-min automated method exhibited the most uniform distribution of the intaglio surface adaptation. CONCLUSION. The optimal postprocessing rinsing times and methods for achieving clear photopolymer resin were found to be the automated method with rinsing times of 10 and 15 min, and the ultrasonic method with a rinsing time of 15 min.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.10 no.5
• /
• pp.354-360
• /
• 2018

PURPOSE. To compare and analyze trueness and precision of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Digital impressions were made using a master model and an intraoral scanner and the crowns were designed with CAD software; in total, 22 crowns were produced. After superimposing CAD design data and scan data using a 3D program, quantitative and qualitative data were obtained for analysis of trueness and precision. Statistical analysis was performed using normality test combined with Levene test for equal variance analysis and independent sample t-test. Type 1 error was set at 0.05. RESULTS. Trueness for the outer and inner surfaces of the SLA crown (SLAC) were $49.6{\pm}9.3{\mu}m$ and $22.5{\pm}5.1{\mu}m$, respectively, and those of the subtractive crown (SUBC) were $31.8{\pm}7.5{\mu}m$ and $14.6{\pm}1.2{\mu}m$, respectively. Precision values for the outer and inner surfaces of the SLAC were $18.7{\pm}6.2{\mu}m$ and $26.9{\pm}8.5{\mu}m$, and those of the SUBC were $25.4{\pm}3.1{\mu}m$ and $13.8{\pm}0.6{\mu}m$, respectively. Trueness values for the outer and inner surfaces of the SLAC and SUBC showed statistically significant differences (P<.001). Precision for the inner surface showed significance (P<.03), whereas that for the outer surface showed no significance (P<.58). CONCLUSION. The study demonstrates that provisional crowns produced by subtractive technology are superior to crowns fabricated by stereolithography in terms of accuracy.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.22-32
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. Digital technology has enabled improvements in the fitting accuracy of denture bases via milling techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of digital and analog techniques for manufacturing complete dentures (CDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty identical CDs were manufactured using different production protocols. Digital and analog technologies were compared using the reference geometric approach, and the Δ-error values of eight areas of interest (AOI) were calculated. For each AOI, a precise number of measurement points was selected according to sensitivity analyses to compare the Δ-error of trueness and precision between the original model and manufactured prosthesis. Three types of statistical analysis were performed: to calculate the intergroup cumulative difference among the three protocols, the intergroup among the AOIs, and the intragroup difference among AOIs. RESULTS. There was a statistically significant difference between the dentures made using the oversize process and injection molding process (P < .001), but no significant difference between the other two manufacturing methods (P = .1227). There was also a statistically significant difference between the dentures made using the monolithic process and the other two processes for all AOIs (P = .0061), but there was no significant difference between the other two processes (P = 1). Within each group, significant differences among the AOIs were observed. CONCLUSION. The monolithic process yielded better results, in terms of accuracy (trueness and precision), than the other groups, although all three processes led to dentures with Δ-error values well within the clinical tolerance limit.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.191-197
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the scan data acquired by the extra-oral and intra-oral scanner. Methods: The maxillary right first molar was made of polymethyl methacrylate(PMMA) specimen. This PMMA specimen was scanned with a engineering scanner and intra-oral scanner. Meanwhile, extra-oral scanner scanned stone die duplicated from PMMA master die. Trueness and precision of scan datas was measured by 3-dimensinal inspection. Independent t-test was conduct to analysis the significant difference(a=0.05). Results: In the trueness analysis, mean of discrepancies were 13.82um for intra oral scanner and 16.84 um for extra-oral scanner. In the precision analysis, mean of discrepancies were 11.72 for inta-oral scanner and 9.2 for extra-oral scanner. Both trueness and precision showed a statistically significant difference (Table 1, p<0.05). Conclusion: Intra-oral scanner can show higher trueness than extra-oral scanner, it has lower precision.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• 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
• /
• v.14 no.6
• /
• pp.388-398
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 14 different intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four implants were placed in regions 13, 16, 23, and 26 of an edentulous maxillary model that was poured with scannable Type 4 gypsum to imitate the All-on-4 concept. The cast was scanned 10 times for each of 14 intraoral scanners (Primescan, iTero 2, iTero 5D, Virtuo Vivo, Trios 3, Trios 4, CS3600, CS3700, Emerald, Emerald S, Medit i500, BenQ BIS-I, Heron IOS, and Aadva IOS 100P) after the polyether ether ketone scanbody was placed. For the control group, the gypsum model was scanned 10 times with an industrial scanner. The first of the 10 virtual models obtained from the industrial model was chosen as the reference model. For trueness, the data of the 14 dental scanners were superimposed with the reference model; for precision, the data of all 14 scanners were superimposed within the groups. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilks, and Dunn's tests. RESULTS. Primescan showed the highest trueness and precision values (P < .005), followed by the iTero 5D scanner (P < .005). CONCLUSION. Some of these digital scanners can be used to make impressions within the All-on-4 concept. However, the possibility of data loss due to artifacts, reflections, and the inability to combine the data should be considered.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.299-306
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of six recently introduced intraoral scanners (IOSs) for single crown preparations isolated from the complete arch, and to determine the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A complete arch with right and left canine preparations for single crowns was used as a study model. The reference dataset was obtained by scanning the complete arch using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM GmbH). Six different IOSs (Trios, iTero, Planmeca Emerald, Cerec Omnicam, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo) were used to scan the model ten times each. The scans performed with each IOS were divided into two groups, based on whether the scanning sequence started from the right or left quadrant (n=5). The accuracy of digital impression was evaluated using three-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). The Kruskal Wallis and Mann- Whitney U statistical tests for trueness analysis and the One-way ANOVA test for precision analysis were performed (α=.05). RESULTS. The trueness and precision values were the lowest with the Primescan (25 and 10 ㎛), followed by Trios (40.5 and 11 ㎛), Omnicam (41.5 ㎛ and 18 ㎛), Virtuo Vivo (52 and 37 ㎛), iTero (70 and 12 ㎛) and Emerald (73.5 and 60 ㎛). Regarding trueness, iTero showed more deviation when scanning started from the right (P=.009). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of digital impressions varied depending on the IOS and scanning sequence used. Primescan had the highest accuracy, while Emerald showed the most deviation in accuracy for single crown preparations.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.5
• /
• pp.316-326
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. Purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the accuracy of different intraoral scans versus laboratory scans of impressions and casts for the digitization of an edentulous maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A PEEK model of an edentulous maxilla, featuring four hemispheres on the alveolar ridges in region 13, 17, 23 and 27, was industrially digitized to obtain a reference dataset (REF). Intraoral scans using Cerec Primescan AC (PRI) and Cerec AC Omnicam (OMN), as well as conventional impressions (scannable polyvinyl siloxane) were carried out (n = 25). Conventional impressions (E5I) and referring plaster casts were scanned with the inEOS X5 (E5M). All datasets were exported in STL and analyzed (Geomagic Qualify). Linear and angular differences were evaluated by virtually constructed measurement points in the centers of the hemispheres (P13, P17, P23, P27) and lines between the points (P17-P13, P17-P23, P17-P27). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test were performed to test for normal distribution, Kruskal-Wallis-H test, and Mann-Whitney-U test to detect significant differences in trueness, followed by 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to detect significant differences in precision (P < .008). RESULTS. Group PRI showed the highest trueness in linear and angular parameters (P < .001), while group E5I showed the highest precision (P < .001). CONCLUSION. Intraoral scan data obtained using Primescan showed the highest trueness while the indirect digitization of impressions showed the highest precision. To enhance the workflow, indirect digitization of the impression itself appears to be a reasonable technique, as it combines fast access to the digital workflow with the possibility of functional impression of mucosal areas.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.5
• /
• pp.294-304
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different palatal vault configurations on the accuracy and scan speed of intraoral scans (IO) of completely edentulous arches. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three different virtual models of a completely edentulous maxillary arch with different palatal vault heights- Cl I moderate (U-shaped), Cl II deep (steep) and Cl III shallow (flat)-were digitally designed using CAD software (Meshmixer; Autodesk, USA) and 3D-printed using SLA-based 3D-printer (XFAB; DWS, Italy) (n = 30; 10 specimens per group). Each model was scanned using intraoral scanner (Trios 3; 3Shape^TM, Denmark). Scanning time was recorded for all samples. Scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) were evaluated using digital subtraction technique using Geomagic Control X v2020 (Geomagic; 3DSystems, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to detect differences in scanning time, trueness and precision among the test groups. Statistical significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS. The scan process could not be completed for Class II group and manufacturer's recommended technique had to be modified. ANOVA revealed no statistically significant difference in trueness and precision values among the test groups (P=.959 and P=.658, respectively). Deep palatal vault (Cl II) showed significantly longer scan time compared to Cl I and III. CONCLUSION. The selection of scan protocol in complex cases such as deep palatal vault is of utmost importance. The modified, adopted longer path scan protocol of deep vault cases resulted in increased scan time when compared to the other two groups.