• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.56 no.3
• /
• pp.258-268
• /
• 2018

Purpose: This study systematically examines literatures on the suitability of prostheses and accuracy of obtained impressions to see if digital impressions using intraoral scanners can replace traditional impressions. Materials and methods: A MEDLINE/PubMed search and manual search was performed for studies written in English about accuracy of digital impression published in dental journals from August 1, 1997, to July 31, 2017. Depending on criteria, the data for the selected articles were independently organized into standardized spreadsheets by 2 reviewers. Results: Among the total 35 studies met the inclusion criteria, there were 26 studies comparing the suitability of prostheses, and 9 studies comparing the accuracy of impressions through scan data without prostheses. Most studies used prostheses to compare the accuracy of impression techniques. Conclusion: This review suggests that making single crown or mesio-distally short prostheses with digital impressions is clinically reliable in natural teeth. However, there is still a limit to making mesio-distally long prostheses with digital impressions from the lack of related studies. Digital impression cannot fully replace traditional impressions in implant prostheses yet.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.55-63
• /
• 2019

The aim of this article was to review various methods used to evaluate the accuracy of digital dental models. When evaluating the accuracy of digital models, the errors can be reduced by educating examiners and using artificial landmarks. The accuracy evaluation methods of digital dental models are divided into linear measurement, 2-dimensional cross-sectional analysis, and 3-dimensional best fit measurement. As the technology of scanners develops, many studies have been conducted to compare the accuracy of digital impression and conventional impression. According to improvement of scan technologies and development of 3-dimensional model analysis software, the ability to evaluate the accuracy of digital models is becoming more efficient. In this article, we describe the methods for evaluating the accuracy of a digital model and investigate effective accuracy analysis methods for each situation.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.29-40
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of impression taking method using the encoded healing abutment, scan body and pick-up impression coping with different implant angulations. Materials and Methods: Master model was fabricated by 3D printer and three implants were placed into the model with 0°, 10° and 20° mesial angulation. The abutments were secured to each implants and master model was scanned to make a reference model. Group P model was fabricated using pick-up impression copings and model was scanned after securing the abutments. Encoded healing abutment (Group E) and scan body (Group S) were secured on the master model and digital impression was taken using intraoral scanner 15 times each. Each STL files of test groups were superimposed with reference model using best fit alignment and root mean square (RMS) value was analyzed. Results: The RMS values were lowest in Group P, followed by Group S and Group E. Group P showed significant difference with Group S and E (P < 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Group S and E. Correlation between implant angulation and RMS value was significant in Group E (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The pick-up impression coping method showed higher accuracy and there was no significant difference in accuracy between the healing abutment and the scan body. The clinical use of the encoded healing abutment is possible, but it should be used with caution in the case of angulated implant.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.221-230
• /
• 2015

Recently, traditional impression has been rapidly replaced by digital impression using intraoral scanning. There are more than 7 types of intraoral scanners available in the dental market. It is difficult to make effective strategic choices due to a lack of standards and guidelines for optimal intraoral scanning devices. So far, little has been reported about evaluating the ergonomic aspect of these scanners. This literature review compares current intraoral scanning systems based on different types of handles and suggests the most comfortable, user-friendly intraoral scanners from an ergonomic standpoint.