• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.201-211
• /
• 2024

PURPOSE. The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the influence of palatal vault forms on accuracy and speed of intraoral (IO) scans in completely edentulous cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Based on the palatal vault form, participants were divided into three equal groups (n = 10 each); Class I: moderate; Class II: deep; Class III: flat palatal vault. A reference model was created for each patient using polyvinylsiloxane impression material. The poured models were digitized using an extraoral scanner. The resultant data were imported as a solid CAD file into 3D analysis software (GOM Inspect 2018; Gom GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) and aligned using the software's coordinate system to determine its X, Y, and Z axes. Five digital impressions (DIs) of maxilla were captured for each patient using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) and the resultant Standard Tessellation Language (STL) scan files served as test models. Trueness was evaluated by calculating arithmetic mean deviation (AMD) of the vault area between reference and test files while precision was evaluated by calculating AMD between captured scans to measure repeatability of scan acquisition. The scan time taken for each participant was also recorded. RESULTS. There was no significant difference in trueness and precision among the groups (P = .806 and .950, respectively). Average scan time for Class I and III palatal vaults was 1 min 13 seconds and 1 min 37 seconds, respectively, while class II deep palatal vaults showed the highest scan time of 5 mins. CONCLUSION. Palatal vault form in edentulous cases has an influence on scan time. However, it does not have a substantial impact on the accuracy of the acquired scans.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.31-40
• /
• 2009

The rheologic properties of elastic impression materials is a very important role as taking high accuracy impression. But, the studies that are focused on the rheologic properties of Korean elastic impression materials are not sufficient. The purpose of this study is to help clinical high accuracy impression taking by testing rheologic properties of elastic impression material that is made by Korea and other countries. Six type III elastic impression materials are tested. Subjects are 2 Korean polyvinylsiloxane(PVS), 2 imported PVS, 1 polyether, and 1 polysulfide. HAAKE RheoStress $1^{(R)}$(Thermo Electron Co. Germany)is used in measuring. HAAKE RheoStress $1^{(R)}$ is plate to plate type rheometer. All subjects is tested 3 times and measuring time is 900 seconds. We measured G′ and loss tangent after mixing. All elastic impression materials had a sigmoid shape on increasing G′ by time and decreasing loss tangent after setting, maximum G' is appeared highest in polyether, and lowest in polysulfide. Initial loss tangent is highest in polyether, and is lowest in Koreans PVS. Significant difference is showed in initial loss tangent between Korean PVS and imported PVS.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.17-31
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of the interocclusal relationship between upper and lower teeth according to the buccal interocclusal record scan using various intraoral scanner systems. Materials and Methods: The upper and lower full arch Models with normal occlusion were scanned with 5 intraoral scanners (Cerec Omnicam, CS3500, iTero, Trios, True Definition). Buccal interocclusal record scan was taken only at the left side while occlusion was intentionally raised by 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm with metal cylinder core embedded within polyvinylsiloxane bite registration material at the right molar region. The superimposition analysis was done to evaluate overall three-dimensional deviation and cross-section analysis was done to evaluate the degree and the direction of deviation of interocclusal relationship. Results: From the superimposition study, Cerec Omnicam showed the least deviation ($165.5{\mu}m$) and CS3500 ($369.0{\mu}m$) showed the largest (P < 0.01). And the deviation was greater in 3, 4, 2 mm group than 1 mm (P < 0.01). From the cross-section study, Cerec Omnicam showed the farthest deviation ($-242.8{\mu}m$) and CS3500 showed the closest deviation ($312.5{\mu}m$) and a significantly high value was shown in 3 mm group. Conclusion: Every intraoral scanner has different accuracy in reproducing interocclusal relationship.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.270-279
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the patients' perception, acceptance, and preference of the difference between a conventional impression and digital impression through questionnaire survey. Materials and Methods: Thirteen (6 male, 7 female) subjects who experienced both digital and conventional impression at the same day were enrolled in this study. Conventional impression were taken with polyvinylsiloxane and digital impression were performed using a newly developed intra-oral scanner. Immediately after the two impressions were made, a survey was conducted with the standardized questionnaires consisting of the following three categories; 1) general dental treatment 2) satisfaction of conventional impression 3) satisfaction of digital impression. The perceived source of satisfaction was evaluated using Likert scale. The distribution of the answers was assessed by percentages and statistical analyses were performed with the paired t-test, and P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were significant differences of the overall satisfaction between two impression methods (P < 0.05). Digital impression showed high satisfaction in less shortness of breath and odor to participants compared to conventional impression. The use of an oral scanner resulted in a discomfort of TMJ due to prolonged mouth opening and in lower score of the scanner tip size. Conclusion: It was confirmed that the preference for the digital impression using intraoral scanner is higher than the conventional impression. Most survey participants said they would recommend the digital impression to others and said they preferred it for future prosthetic treatment.