scholarly journals A Comparative Study of the Fitness and Trueness of a Three-Unit Fixed Dental Prosthesis Fabricated Using Two Digital Workflows

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
pp. 2778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daehee Jang ◽  
Keunbada Son ◽  
Kyu-bok Lee
Keyword(s):  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Dental Prosthesis ◽  
Test Model ◽  
3D Analysis ◽  
Digital Workflow ◽  
Open Type ◽  
Fixed Dental Prosthesis ◽  
Closed Type ◽  
Computer Aided ◽  
Internal Fit

The purpose of this study was to measure and correlate the fitness and trueness of a 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) fabricated using two digital workflows. The 3-unit FDPs were fabricated using two digital workflows (N = 15). The digital workflows were divided into chairside (closed type) and in-lab (open type) groups. The scanning, computer-aided design (CAD), and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) processes were conducted with 3shape E1 scanner, exocad CAD software, and DDS EZIS HM, respectively, in the in-lab group; and with CEREC omnicam intraoral scanner, CEREC CAD software, and CEREC MC XL, respectively, in the chairside group. The fitness of the fabricated 3-unit FDPs was evaluated by scanning the silicone replica of the cement space and analyzing the thickness of the silicone replica in the three-dimensional (3D) inspection software (Geomagic control X). The trueness of the milling unit was analyzed by 3D analysis of the CAD reference model, which is the design file of the 3-unit FDP, and the CAD test model, which is the scanned file of the 3-unit FDP. In the statistical analysis, comparison of the two groups was conducted by Mann–Whitney U test, and the correlation between the fitness and trueness was conducted by Pearson correlation test (α = 0.05). The marginal and internal fit were significantly lower in the in-lab group at all measurement positions (p < 0.001). The trueness of the milling unit was significantly higher in the in-lab group compared to the chairside group (p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between the trueness and internal fit (correlation coefficient = 0.621) in the in-lab group (p = 0.013). The use of appropriate equipment in an in-lab (open type) digital workflow enables a better fabrication of 3-unit FDPs than a chairside (closed type) digital workflow, and poor trueness on the inner surface of the crown adversely affects the internal fit.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Based on the Type of Tooth Preparation for a Single Crown

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (20) ◽  
pp. 9399
Author(s):  
Dong-Geun Lee ◽  
Keunbada Son ◽  
Kyu-Bok Lee
Keyword(s):  
Computer Aided Design ◽  
Reference Model ◽  
Test Model ◽  
3D Analysis ◽  
Intraoral Scanner ◽  
Single Crown ◽  
Computer Aided ◽  
Tooth Preparation ◽  
Positive Correlations ◽  
Aided Design

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in 10 abutments (five premolars and five molars) obtained in a dental clinic and to analyze the impacts of the volume and area of abutments on scanning accuracy. Abutment casts were scanned five times with a 3D contact scanner (DS10; Renishaw plc). The five scan files were lined up and then merged, and one high-resolution computer-aided design reference model (CRM) was obtained. To obtain a computer-aided design test model (CTM), three types of intraoral scanners (CS3600 (Carestream Dental), i500 (Medit), and EZIS PO (DDS)) and one type of laboratory scanner (E1; 3Shape) were employed. Using 3D analysis software (Geomagic control X; 3D Systems), the accuracy of the scanners was evaluated, including optimal overlap by optimal alignment. The conformity of the overlapped data was calculated by the root mean square (RMS) value, using the 3D compare function for evaluation. As for statistical analysis, testing was conducted, using one-way and two-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05) for the comparison of the groups. To analyze the correlations of the volume and area of the abutments with accuracy, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted (α = 0.00625). Both premolar and molar abutments showed a lower RMS value on the laboratory scanner than on the intraoral scanners, and the RMS value was lower in premolars than in molars (p < 0.001). In the intraoral scanner group, CS3600 showed the best accuracy (p < 0.001). There were significant positive correlations for the volume and area of the abutments with accuracy (p < 0.001). The type, volume, and area of the clinically applicable abutments may affect the accuracy of intraoral scanners; however, the scanners used in the present study showed a clinically acceptable accuracy range, regardless of the type of abutment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document