Accuracy of Three Digitization Methods for the Dental Arch with Various Tooth Preparation Designs: An In Vitro Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyung Chul Oh ◽  
Bora Lee ◽  
Young-Bum Park ◽  
Hong Seok Moon
2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 66-70
Author(s):  
Dr. S. Seyedasharafali ◽  
Dr. Suma Karthigeyan ◽  
J. Sankar ◽  
R. Madhan ◽  
Dr. R. Krishnaraj ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-446
Author(s):  
Y. Honme ◽  
M. Motoyoshi ◽  
A. Shinohara ◽  
T. Shigeeda ◽  
N. Shimizu

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 569-575
Author(s):  
Pooja Yadav ◽  
◽  
Ashish Jain ◽  
Rahul Rao ◽  
Harshil Patel ◽  
...  

Aims: This is an vitro study compares and evaluates the effect of magnification tools on frequency and extent of iatrogenic damage to approximal tooth surface during conservative Class II cavity preparations. Methods and Material: 30 Typodont teeth were divided into 3 groups 10 typodont teeth in each group and were mounted on Phantom head. Teeth were prepared for class II (MO) cavity on 36 with conservative design using airotor with naked eye, loupes and microscope and iatrogenic damage was assessed on tooth no 35. Assessment of iatrogenic damage of all the groups was done by profilometer test. Statistical analysis used:Statistical analysis was done using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Post-hoc pair-wise comparisons were done using Dunnetts test. Results: Results revealed that tooth preparation was better under microscopes and loupes with statistical significant difference for samples with loupes and microscope on comparison with naked eye. Study also expressed the difficulty faced during tooth preparation with microscope and loupes for the first time. Conclusions: Magnifying tools helps in better vision and less iatrogenic damage while preparing the tooth for restoration.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 201-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rami Ammoun ◽  
Montry S. Suprono ◽  
Charles J. Goodacre ◽  
Udochukwu Oyoyo ◽  
Caroline K. Carrico ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Yong Kwon Chae ◽  
Hyeonjong Lee ◽  
Hong‐Keun Hyun ◽  
Hyo‐Seol Lee ◽  
Sung Chul Choi ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Gao ◽  
L Jia ◽  
X Tan ◽  
H Yu

SUMMARY Objective: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the preservation of enamel after tooth preparation for porcelain laminate veneers (PLVs) at different preparation depths based on a fully digital workflow. Methods and Materials: Sixty extracted human maxillary anterior teeth, including 20 maxillary central incisors (MCIs), 20 maxillary lateral incisors (MLIs), and 20 maxillary canines (MCs) underwent microcomputed tomography (CT) scanning, and were reconstructed as three-dimensional (3D) enamel and dentin models. Subsequently, the three-dimensional (3D) enamel models were imported into Materialise, where each enamel model underwent seven types of virtual preparation for PLVs at preparation depths at 0.1-mm increments from 0.1-0.3-0.5 mm (D1) to 0.7-0.9-1.1 mm (D7). The enamel surface was depicted by merging the virtual preparation and, respective, dentin models. The enamel area and prepared surface were measured to calculate the percentage of enamel (R%). The data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (α=0.05). Results: The group-wise mean (standard deviation) R values for the MCIs were as follows: D1-D3: 100.00 (0) each, and D4-D7: 74.70 (2.45), 51.40 (5.12), 24.40 (3.06), and 0.00 (0), respectively. The group-wise mean R values for the MLIs were 100.00 (0), 73.70 (3.40), 53.50 (3.44), 25.20 (3.79), and 0.90 (0.99) for the D1-D5 groups, respectively; and 0.00 (0) each for the D6-D7 groups. The group-wise mean (standard deviations) R values for the MCs were as follows: D1-D3: 100.00 (0) each, and D4-D7: 99.00 (1.34), 77.10 (3.28), 74.20 (3.61), and 52.20 (4.09), respectively. The one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between the seven groups in the MCIs, MLIs, and MCs (p<0.05). Conclusions: Our results recommended preparation depths of up to 0.3-0.5-0.7 mm (MCIs), 0.1-0.3-0.5 mm (MLIs), and 0.4-0.6-0.8 mm (MCs) to facilitate complete intraenamel preparation. Moreover, 50% enamel was preserved at preparation depths of 0.5-0.7-0.9 mm (MCIs), 0.3-0.5-0.7 mm (MLIs), and 0.7-0.9-1.1 mm (MCs).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document