• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.22-29
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. This study aimed to investigate the potential clinical application of digitized silicone rubber impressions by comparing the accuracy of zirconia 3-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated from 2 types of data (working model and impression) obtained from a laser scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ten working models and impressions were prepared with epoxy resin and vinyl polysiloxane, respectively. Based on the data obtained from the laser scanner (D-700; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), a total of 20 zirconia frameworks were prepared using a dental CAD/CAM system (DentalDesigner; 3shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark / Ener-mill, Dentaim, Seoul, Korea). The silicone replicas were sectioned into four pieces to evaluate the framework fit. The replicas were imaged using a digital microscope, and the fit of the reference points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, and P7) were measured using the program in the device. Measured discrepancies were divided into 5 categories of gaps (MG, CG, AWG, AOTG, OG). Data were analyzed with Student's t-test ($\alpha$=0.05), repeated measures ANOVA and two-way ANOVA (${\alpha}=0.05$). RESULTS. The mean gap of the zirconia framework prepared from the working models presented a narrower discrepancy than the frameworks fabricated from the impression bodies. The mean of the total gap in premolars (P=.003) and molars (P=.002) exhibited a statistical difference between two groups. CONCLUSION. The mean gap dimensions of each category showed statistically significant difference. Nonetheless, the digitized impression bodies obtained with a laser scanner were applicable to clinical settings, considering the clinically acceptable marginal fit ($120{\mu}m$).

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.4
• /
• pp.452-456
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the digitizing of silicon rubber impressions of abutment teeth by using a white light scanner and compare differences in repeatability between different abutment teeth types. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Silicon rubber impressions of a canine, premolar, and molar tooth were each digitized 8 times using a white light scanner, and 3D surface models were created using the point clouds. The size of any discrepancy between each model and the corresponding reference tooth were measured, and the distribution of these values was analyzed by an inspection software (PowerInspect 2012, Delcamplc., Birmingham, UK). Absolute values of discrepancies were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple comparisons (${\alpha}$=.05). RESULTS. The discrepancy between the impressions for the canine, premolar, and molar teeth were $6.3{\mu}m$ (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.2), $6.4{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 5.3-7.6), and $8.9{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 8.2-9.5), respectively. The discrepancy of the molar tooth impression was significantly higher than that of other tooth types. The largest variation (as mean [SD]) in discrepancies was seen in the premolar tooth impression scans: $26.7{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 19.7-33.8); followed by canine and molar teeth impressions, $16.3{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 15.3- 17.3), and $14.0{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 12.3-15.7), respectively. CONCLUSION. The repeatability of the digitizing abutment teeth's silicon rubber impressions by using a white light scanner was improved compared to that with a laser scanner, showing only a low mean discrepancy between $6.3{\mu}m$ and $8.9{\mu}m$, which was in an clinically acceptable range. Premolar impression with a long and narrow shape showed a significantly larger discrepancy than canine and molar impressions. Further work is needed to increase the digitizing performance of the white light scanner for deep and slender impressions.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.214-218
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. We assessed the repeatability and reproducibility of abutment teeth dental impressions, digitized with a blue light scanner, by comparing the discrepancies in repeatability and reproducibility values for different types of abutment teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. To evaluate repeatability, impressions of the canine, first premolar, and first molar, prepared for ceramic crowns, were repeatedly scanned to acquire 5 sets of 3-dimensional data via stereolithography (STL) files. Point clouds were compared and the error sizes were measured (n=10, per type). To evaluate reproducibility, the impressions were rotated by $10-20^{\circ}$ on the table and scanned. These data were compared to the first STL data and the error sizes were measured (n=5, per type). One-way analysis of variance was used to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the 3 types of teeth, and Tukey honest significant differences (HSD) multiple comparison test was used for post hoc comparisons (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The differences with regard to repeatability were 4.5, 2.7, and $3.1{\mu}m$ for the canine, premolar, and molar, indicating the poorest repeatability for the canine (P<.001). For reproducibility, the differences were 6.6, 5.8, and $11.0{\mu}m$ indicating the poorest reproducibility for the molar (P=.007). CONCLUSION. Our results indicated that impressions of individual abutment teeth, digitized with a blue light scanner, had good repeatability and reproducibility.

• 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.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.29-35
• /
• 2013

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of digital models fabricated by dental scannable stone. Methods: Twenty same cases of stone models(maxillary full arch) were manufactured. Intercanine distance, intermolar distance, two dental arch lengths(right, left), two diagonal of dental arch lengths(right, left) were measured for comparison. Each of ten stone models were measured by digital vernier calipers and scanned by dental scanner. Ten digital models were measured by CAD program. The mean(SDs) values were compared by a Mann-Whitney U test(${\alpha}$=0.05). Results: No statistically significant differences between the two groups were found at intermolar distance, dental arch length(right)(p>0.05). However, intercanine distance, dental arch length(left) and two diagonal of dental arch lengths(right, left) were statistically significant(p<0.05). Conclusion: Stone models fabricated by dental scannable stone showed larger than digital models.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.15 no.5
• /
• pp.3007-3013
• /
• 2014

The objectives of this study was to evaluate the validity of 3D digital models made from blue LED dental scanner. Twenty same cases of stone models and 3d digital models were manufactured for this study. Intercanine distance, intermolar distance, two dental arch lengths(right, left) and two diagonal of dental arch lengths(right, left) were measured for evaluation of validity. The nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for statistical analysis (${\alpha}$=0.05). Although stone models showed larger than digital models in all measured distances(p<0.05), none exceeded the clinically acceptable range.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.104-115
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the image acquisition ability of intraoral scanners by analyzing the comprehensiveness of scanned images from standardized model, and to identify problems of the model. Materials and Methods: Cast models and 3D-printed models were prepared according to international standards set by ISO12836 and ANSI/ADA no. 132, which were then scanned by model scanner and two different intraoral scanners (TRIOS3 and CS3500). The image acquisition performance of the scanners was classified into three grades, and the study was repeated with varying surface conditions of the models. Results: Model scanner produced the most accurate images in all models. Meanwhile, CS3500 showed good image reproducibility for angled structures and TRIOS3 showed good image reproducibility for rounded structures. As for model ingredients, improved plaster model best reproduced scan images regardless of the type of scanner used. When limited to 3D-printed model, powdered surface condition resulted in higher image quality. Conclusion: When scanning structures beyond FOV (field of view) in standardized models (following ISO12836 and ANSI/ADA 132), lack of reference points to help distinguish different faces confuses the scanning and matching process, resulting in inaccurate display of images. These results imply the need to develop a new standard model not confined to simple pattern repetition and symmetric structure.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.3-12
• /
• 2016

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the precision of three-dimensional (3D) images acquired using iTero$^{(R)}$(Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) and Trios$^{(R)}$(3Shape Dental Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark) digital intraoral scanners, and to evaluate the effects of the severity of tooth irregularities and scanning sequence on precision. Methods: Dental arch models were fabricated with differing degrees of tooth irregularity and divided into 2 groups based on scanning sequence. To assess their precision, images were superimposed and an optimized superimposition algorithm was employed to measure any 3D deviation. The t-test, paired t-test, and one-way ANOVA were performed (p < 0.05) for statistical analysis. Results: The iTero$^{(R)}$ and Trios$^{(R)}$ systems showed no statistically significant difference in precision among models with differing degrees of tooth irregularity. However, there were statistically significant differences in the precision of the 2 scanners when the starting points of scanning were different. The iTero$^{(R)}$ scanner (mean deviation, $29.84{\pm}12.08{\mu}m$) proved to be less precise than the Trios$^{(R)}$ scanner ($22.17{\pm}4.47{\mu}m$). Conclusions: The precision of 3D images differed according to the degree of tooth irregularity, scanning sequence, and scanner type. However, from a clinical standpoint, both scanners were highly accurate regardless of the degree of tooth irregularity.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.69-76
• /
• 2014

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of polyurethane (PUT) dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional (3D) subtractive rapid prototyping (RP) method with an intraoral scanning technique by comparing linear measurements obtained from PUT models and conventional plaster models. Methods: Ten plaster models were duplicated using a selected standard master model and conventional impression, and 10 PUT models were duplicated using the 3D subtractive RP technique with an oral scanner. Six linear measurements were evaluated in terms of x, y, and z-axes using a non-contact white light scanner. Accuracy was assessed using mean differences between two measurements, and precision was examined using four quantitative methods and the Bland-Altman graphical method. Repeatability was evaluated in terms of intra-examiner variability, and reproducibility was assessed in terms of interexaminer and inter-method variability. Results: The mean difference between plaster models and PUT models ranged from 0.07 mm to 0.33 mm. Relative measurement errors ranged from 2.2% to 7.6% and intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.93 to 0.96, when comparing plaster models and PUT models. The Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement. Conclusions: The accuracy and precision of PUT dental models for evaluating the performance of oral scanner and subtractive RP technology was acceptable. Because of the recent improvements in block material and computerized numeric control milling machines, the subtractive RP method may be a good choice for dental arch models.

• 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.