The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions

  • Jeon, Jin-Hun (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Lee, Kyung-Tak (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Hae-Young (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science & Department of Public Health Sciences, Graduate School & BK21+ Program in Public Health Sciences, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Hwan (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Woong-Chul (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University)
  • Received : 2013.05.13
  • Accepted : 2013.10.31
  • Published : 2013.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the digitizing of silicon rubber impressions of abutment teeth by using a white light scanner and compare differences in repeatability between different abutment teeth types. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Silicon rubber impressions of a canine, premolar, and molar tooth were each digitized 8 times using a white light scanner, and 3D surface models were created using the point clouds. The size of any discrepancy between each model and the corresponding reference tooth were measured, and the distribution of these values was analyzed by an inspection software (PowerInspect 2012, Delcamplc., Birmingham, UK). Absolute values of discrepancies were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple comparisons (${\alpha}$=.05). RESULTS. The discrepancy between the impressions for the canine, premolar, and molar teeth were $6.3{\mu}m$ (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.2), $6.4{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 5.3-7.6), and $8.9{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 8.2-9.5), respectively. The discrepancy of the molar tooth impression was significantly higher than that of other tooth types. The largest variation (as mean [SD]) in discrepancies was seen in the premolar tooth impression scans: $26.7{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 19.7-33.8); followed by canine and molar teeth impressions, $16.3{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 15.3- 17.3), and $14.0{\mu}m$ (95% CI, 12.3-15.7), respectively. CONCLUSION. The repeatability of the digitizing abutment teeth's silicon rubber impressions by using a white light scanner was improved compared to that with a laser scanner, showing only a low mean discrepancy between $6.3{\mu}m$ and $8.9{\mu}m$, which was in an clinically acceptable range. Premolar impression with a long and narrow shape showed a significantly larger discrepancy than canine and molar impressions. Further work is needed to increase the digitizing performance of the white light scanner for deep and slender impressions.

Keywords

References

  1. Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touchprobe scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:194-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.01.003
  2. Schaefer O, Kuepper H, Sigusch BW, Thompson GA, Hefti AF, Guentsch A. Three-dimensional fit of lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro. J Dent 2013;41:271-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.014
  3. Schaefer O, Watts DC, Sigusch BW, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility. Dent Mater 2012;28:320-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.12.008
  4. Hewlett ER, Orro ME, Clark GT. Accuracy testing of threedimensional digitizing systems. Dent Mater 1992;8:49-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(92)90053-F
  5. Luthardt RG, Sandkuhl O, Herold V, Walter MH. Accuracy of mechanical digitizing with a CAD/CAM system for fixed restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:146-51.
  6. Dahlmo KI, Andersson M, Gellerstedt M, Karlsson S. On a new method to assess the accuracy of a CAD program. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:276-83.
  7. Kuroda T, Motohashi N, Tominaga R, Iwata K. Threedimensional dental cast analyzing system using laser scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:365-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70036-7
  8. 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: 929-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100
  9. Lee KT, Kim JH, Kim WC, Kim JH. Three-dimensional evaluation on the repeatability and reproducibility of dental scanner- based digital models. J Korean Acad Dent Tech 2012;34: 213-20.
  10. Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 2007;35:903-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.08.008
  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2001.00078.x
  12. Luthardt RG, Kühmstedt P, Walter MH. A new method for the computer-aided evaluation of three-dimensional changes in gypsum materials. Dent Mater 2003;19:19-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00013-1
  13. Nazzal R. CAD scanners and design software. Inside Dent Tech 2012;3:7.
  14. Blais F. Review of 20 years of range sensor development. J Electron Imaging 2004;13:231-40. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.1631921

Cited by

  1. Accuracy of 3D white light scanning of abutment teeth impressions: evaluation of trueness and precision vol.6, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.6.468
  2. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scans of stone models and impressions using a blue LED scanner vol.34, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-347
  3. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations vol.24, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150266
  4. Repeatability and reproducibility of individual abutment impression, assessed with a blue light scanner vol.8, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.3.214
  5. Trueness and precision of scanning abutment impressions and stone models according to dental CAD/CAM evaluation standards vol.10, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.335
  6. Evaluation of the reproducibility of various abutments using a blue light model scanner vol.10, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.4.328
  7. 세 가지 방식의 스캐너 종류에 따른 모형 정확도 평가 vol.15, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.17135/jdhs.2015.15.2.226
  8. Simulation-based scanning of a structured light system for objects without overhangs vol.54, pp.19, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1109722
  9. Trueness of CAD/CAM digitization with a desktop scanner - an in vitro study vol.19, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0976-1
  10. Digital impressions in dentistry-accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners vol.24, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02995-w