• Title/Summary/Keyword: pre-fabrication

Search Result 212, Processing Time 0.015 seconds

Accuracy of 5-axis precision milling for guided surgical template (가이드 수술용 템플릿을 위한 5축 정밀가공공정의 정확성에 관한 연구)

  • Park, Ji-Man;Yi, Tae-Kyoung;Jung, Je-Kyo;Kim, Yong;Park, Eun-Jin;Han, Chong-Hyun;Koak, Jai-Young;Kim, Seong-Kyun;Heo, Seong-Joo
    • The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
    • /
    • v.48 no.4
    • /
    • pp.294-300
    • /
    • 2010
  • Purpose: The template-guided implant surgery offers several advantages over the traditional approach. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of coordinate synchronization procedure with 5-axis milling machine for surgical template fabrication by means of reverse engineering through universal CAD software. Materials and methods: The study was performed on ten edentulous models with imbedded gutta percha stoppings which were hidden under silicon gingival form. The platform for synchordination was formed on the bottom side of models and these casts were imaged in Cone beam CT. Vectors of stoppings were extracted and transferred to those of planned implant on virtual planning software. Depth of milling process was set to the level of one half of stoppings and the coordinate of the data was synchronized to the model image. Synchronization of milling coordinate was done by the conversion process for the platform for the synchordination located on the bottom of the model. The models were fixed on the synchordination plate of 5-axis milling machine and drilling was done as the planned vector and depth based on the synchronized data with twist drill of the same diameter as GP stopping. For the 3D rendering and image merging, the impression tray was set on the conbeam CT and pre- and post- CT acquiring was done with the model fixed on the impression body. The accuracy analysis was done with Solidworks (Dassault systems, Concord, USA) by measuring vector of stopping’s top and bottom centers of experimental model through merging and reverse engineering the planned and post-drilling CT image. Correlations among the parameters were tested by means of Pearson correlation coefficient and calculated with SPSS (release 14.0, SPSS Inc. Chicago, USA) ($\alpha$ = 0.05). Results: Due to the declination, GP remnant on upper half of stoppings was observed for every drilled bores. The deviation between planned image and drilled bore that was reverse engineered was 0.31 (0.15 - 0.42) mm at the entrance, 0.36 (0.24 - 0.51) mm at the apex, and angular deviation was 1.62 (0.54 - 2.27)$^{\circ}$. There was positive correlation between the deviation at the entrance and that at the apex (Pearson Correlation Coefficient = 0.904, P = .013). Conclusion: The coordinate synchronization 5-axis milling procedure has adequate accuracy for the production of the guided surgical template.

The Standard of Judgement on Plagiarism in Research Ethics and the Guideline of Global Journals for KODISA (KODISA 연구윤리의 표절 판단기준과 글로벌 학술지 가이드라인)

  • Hwang, Hee-Joong;Kim, Dong-Ho;Youn, Myoung-Kil;Lee, Jung-Wan;Lee, Jong-Ho
    • Journal of Distribution Science
    • /
    • v.12 no.6
    • /
    • pp.15-20
    • /
    • 2014
  • Purpose - In general, researchers try to abide by the code of research ethics, but many of them are not fully aware of plagiarism, unintentionally committing the research misconduct when they write a research paper. This research aims to introduce researchers a clear and easy guideline at a conference, which helps researchers avoid accidental plagiarism by addressing the issue. This research is expected to contribute building a climate and encouraging creative research among scholars. Research design, data, methodology & Results - Plagiarism is considered a sort of research misconduct along with fabrication and falsification. It is defined as an improper usage of another author's ideas, language, process, or results without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism has nothing to do with examining the truth or accessing value of research data, process, or results. Plagiarism is determined based on whether a research corresponds to widely-used research ethics, containing proper citations. Within academia, plagiarism goes beyond the legal boundary, encompassing any kind of intentional wrongful appropriation of a research, which was created by another researchers. In summary, the definition of plagiarism is to steal other people's creative idea, research model, hypotheses, methods, definition, variables, images, tables and graphs, and use them without reasonable attribution to their true sources. There are various types of plagiarism. Some people assort plagiarism into idea plagiarism, text plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, and idea distortion. Others view that plagiarism includes uncredited usage of another person's work without appropriate citations, self-plagiarism (using a part of a researcher's own previous research without proper citations), duplicate publication (publishing a researcher's own previous work with a different title), unethical citation (using quoted parts of another person's research without proper citations as if the parts are being cited by the current author). When an author wants to cite a part that was previously drawn from another source the author is supposed to reveal that the part is re-cited. If it is hard to state all the sources the author is allowed to mention the original source only. Today, various disciplines are developing their own measures to address these plagiarism issues, especially duplicate publications, by requiring researchers to clearly reveal true sources when they refer to any other research. Conclusions - Research misconducts including plagiarism have broad and unclear boundaries which allow ambiguous definitions and diverse interpretations. It seems difficult for researchers to have clear understandings of ways to avoid plagiarism and how to cite other's works properly. However, if guidelines are developed to detect and avoid plagiarism considering characteristics of each discipline (For example, social science and natural sciences might be able to have different standards on plagiarism.) and shared among researchers they will likely have a consensus and understanding regarding the issue. Particularly, since duplicate publications has frequently appeared more than plagiarism, academic institutions will need to provide pre-warning and screening in evaluation processes in order to reduce mistakes of researchers and to prevent duplicate publications. What is critical for researchers is to clearly reveal the true sources based on the common citation rules and to only borrow necessary amounts of others' research.