대한치과기공학회지 (Journal of Technologic Dentistry)

  • 제36권1호
  • /
  • Pages.17-23
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 1229-3954(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-5218(eISSN)
대한치과기공학회 (Korean Academy of Dental Technology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

백색광과 청색 LED 방식의 광학스캐너로 채득된 디지털 모형의 비교분석

Comparative analysis on digital models obtained by white light and blue LED optical scanners

  • 최석순 (신구대학교 치기공과) ;
  • 김재홍 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공) ;
  • 김지환 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공)
  • Choi, Seog-Soon (Dept. of Dental Technology, Shingu University) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Hong (Dept. of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Hwan (Dept. of Health Science Specialized in Dental Lab. Science & Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University)
  • 투고 : 2014.01.29
  • 심사 : 2014.03.24
  • 발행 : 2014.03.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the relative accuracy of digitized stone models of lower full arch, using two different scanning system. Methods: Replica stone models(N=20) were produced from lower arch acrylic model. Twenty digital models were made with the white light and blue LED($Medit^{(R)}$, Korea) scanner. Two-dimensional distance between the landmarks were measured on the Delcam $CopyCAD^{(R)}$(Delcam plc, UK). Independent samples t-test was applied for comparison of the groups. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software package(Statistical Package for Social Sciences for Windows, version 12.0). Results: The absolute disagreement between measurements made directly on the two different scanner-based dental digital models was 0.02~0.04mm, and was not statistically significant(P>0.05). Conclusion: The precision of the blue LED optical scanner was comparable with the digitization device, and relative accuracy was similar. However, there still is room for improvement and further standardization of dental CAD technologies.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Alcan T, Ceylanoglu C, Baysal B. The relationship between digital model accuracy and timedependent deformation of alginate impressions. Angle Orthod, 79(1), 30-36, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2319/100307-475.1
  2. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry, an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J, 204(9), 505-511, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350
  3. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing, deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc, 140(10), 1301-1304, 2009. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054
  4. Creed B, Chung HK, Jeryl DE, James JX, Lee A. Comparison of the accuracy of linear measurement obtained from cone beam computerized tomography images and digital models. Semin Orthod, 17(2), 49-56, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.010
  5. 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, 90(1), 434-440, 2003.
  6. Dental CAD-CAM, Identica Blue Led information, Germany. http: //www.dentalcadcameshop.com/Identica-Blue-Led, 2014.
  7. Kim JH, Kim JH, Kim HY. A study on common errors in digital impressions: An example of CEREC AC. J Korean Acad Dent Tech, 33(3), 211-218, 2011.
  8. Lee KT, Kim JH, Kim WC, Kim JH. Threedimensional evaluation on the repeatability and reproducibility of dental scanner-based digital models. J Korean Acad Dent Tech, 34(2), 213-220, 2012. https://doi.org/10.14347/kadt.2012.34.3.213
  9. Luthardt RG, Koch R, Rudolph H, Walter MH. Qualitative computer aided evaluation of dental impressions in vivo. J Dent, 22(4), 69-76, 2006.
  10. Luthardt RG, Walter MH, Weber A, Koch R, Rudolph H. Clinical parameters influencing the accuracy of 1- and 2- stage impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Prosthodont, 21(4), 322-327, 2008.
  11. May KB, Russell MM, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. Precision of fit: the Procera AllCeram crown. J Prosthet Dent, 80(2), 394-404, 1993.
  12. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J, 28(1), 44-56, 2009. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.44
  13. Motohashi N, Kuroda T. A 3D computer-aided design system applied to diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. European J Orthod, 21(3), 263-274, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.3.263
  14. Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a scanner and a touch-probe scanner. J Prosthet Dent, 95(3), 194-200, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.01.003
  15. Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod, 74(2), 298-303, 2004.
  16. Santoro M, Galkin, M. Teredesai, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 124(1), 101-105, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00152-5
  17. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 129(2), 794-803, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.023
  18. Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three - dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod, 73(3), 301-306, 2003.

피인용 문헌

  1. 치과용 모형 스캐너의 지대치 중첩 과정이 최종 가상 모형에 미치는 영향 vol.57, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2019.57.3.203