Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scans of stone models and impressions using a blue LED scanner
Source abstract
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the repeatability of scans of stone models and impressions of abutment teeth using a blue LED scanner and compared the findings between different abutment teeth types. For the stone models as well as impression of the canines, premolars, and molars, we generated 10 color-difference-maps and reports for each tooth type (n=10 per tooth type). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent t-tests were performed to evaluate the repeatability of scans of the stone models and impressions obtained from a blue LED scanner. Our results indicate a high repeatability of scans of stone models and impressions of abutment teeth using the blue LED scanner and suggest a possible clinical advantage for scanning impressions of different abutment teeth types.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Research and COVID-19 · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University
Department of Public Health Science, Graduate School & BK21+ Program in Public Health Science, Korea University
References (19)
Show source-provided references
1. 1) Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch probe scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95: 194-200.10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.01.003 ↗
2. 2) Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 304-310.10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.011 ↗
3. 3) Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 2007; 35: 903-908.10.1016/j.jdent.2007.08.008 ↗
4. 4) Persson AS, Odén A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 929-936.10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100 ↗
5. 5) Jeon JH, Lee KT, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC. White light scanner-based repeatability of three-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions. J Adv Prosthodont 2013; 5: 452-456.10.4047/jap.2013.5.4.452 ↗
6. 6) Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109: 121-128.10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 ↗
7. 7) Persson AS, Andersson M, Odén A, Sandborgh-Englund G. Computer aided analysis of digitized dental stone replicas by dental CAD/CAM technology. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 1123-1130.10.1016/j.dental.2008.01.008 ↗
8. 8) Webber B, McDonald A, Knowles J. An in vitro study of the compressive load at fracture of Procera AllCeram crowns with varying thickness of veneer porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 154-160.10.1067/mpr.2003.85 ↗
9. 9) Alikhasi M, Monzavi A, Bassir SH, Naini RB, Khosronedjad N, Keshavarz S. A comparison of precision of fit, rotational freedom, and torque loss with copy-milled zirconia and prefabricated titanium abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28: 996-1002.10.11607/jomi.2937 ↗
10. 10) Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 2005; 8: 283-294.
11. 11) Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparison based on threedimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 1461-1471.10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027 ↗
12. 12) DeLong R, Pintado MR, Ko CC, Hodges JS, Douglas WH. Factors influencing optical 3D scanning of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. J Prosthodont 2001; 10: 78-85.10.1111/j.1532-849X.2001.00078.x ↗
13. 13) Bernal C, Agustina B, Marín MM, Camacho AM. Performance evaluation of optical scanner based on blue led structured light. Procedia Eng 2013; 63: 591-598.10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.261 ↗
14. 14) Persson M, Andersson M, Bergman B. The accuracy of a highprecision digitizer for CAD/CAM of crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1995; 74: 223-229.10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80127-1 ↗
15. 15) Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 471-478.10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017 ↗
16. 16) Kenyon BJ, Hagge MS, Leknius C, Daniels WC, Weed ST. Dimensional accuracy of 7 die materials. J Prosthodont 2005; 14: 25-31.10.1111/j.1532-849X.2005.00007.x ↗
17. 17) DeLong R, Heinzen M, Hodges JS, Ko CC, Douglas WH. Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res 2003; 82: 438-442.10.1177/154405910308200607 ↗
18. 18) Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A.Recent advances in dental optics —Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng 2014; 54: 203-221.10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017 ↗
19. 19) Trifkovic B, Budak I, Todorovic A, Vukelic D, Lazic V, Puskar T.Comparative analysis on measuring performances of dental intraoral and extraoral optical 3D digitization systems. Measurement 2014; 47: 45-53.10.1016/j.measurement.2013.08.051 ↗