• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.3
• /
• pp.203-210
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to verify the effect of the abutment superimposition process on the final virtual model in the scanning process of single and 3-units bridge model using a dental model scanner. Materials and methods: A gypsum model for single and 3-unit bridges was manufactured for evaluating. And working casts with removable dies were made using Pindex system. A dental model scanner (3Shape E1 scanner) was used to obtain CAD reference model (CRM) and CAD test model (CTM). The CRM was scanned without removing after dividing the abutments in the working cast. Then, CTM was scanned with separated from the divided abutments and superimposed on the CRM (n=20). Finally, three-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic control X) was used to analyze the root mean square (RMS) and Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis (${\alpha}=.05$). Results: The RMS mean abutment for single full crown preparation was $10.93{\mu}m$ and the RMS average abutment for 3 unit bridge preparation was $6.9{\mu}m$. The RMS mean of the two groups showed statistically significant differences (P<.001). In addition, errors of positive and negative of two groups averaged $9.83{\mu}m$, $-6.79{\mu}m$ and 3-units bridge abutment $6.22{\mu}m$, $-3.3{\mu}m$, respectively. The mean values of the errors of positive and negative of two groups were all statistically significantly lower in 3-unit bridge abutments (P<.001). Conclusion: Although the number of abutments increased during the scan process of the working cast with removable dies, the error due to the superimposition of abutments did not increase. There was also a significantly higher error in single abutments, but within the range of clinically acceptable scan accuracy.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.102-109
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three types of intraoral scanners and the accuracy of the single abutment and bridge abutment model. Materials and methods: In this study, a single abutment, and a bridge abutment with missing first molar was fabricated and set as the reference model. The reference model was scanned with an industrial three-dimensional scanner and set as reference scan data. The reference model was scanned five times using the three intraoral scanners (CS3600, CS3500, and EZIS PO). This was set as the evaluation scan data. In the three-dimensional analysis (Geomagic control X), the divided abutment region was selected and analyzed to verify the scan accuracy of the abutment. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (${\alpha}=.05$). The accuracy of intraoral scanners was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and post-test was performed using the Pairwise test. The accuracy difference between the single abutment model and the bridge abutment model was analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: The accuracy according to the intraoral scanner was significantly different (P < .05). The trueness of the single abutment model and the bridge abutment model showed a statistically significant difference and showed better trueness in the single abutment (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the precision (P = .616). Conclusion: As a result of comparing the accuracy of single and bridge abutments, the error of abutment scan increased with increasing scan area, and the accuracy of bridge abutment model was clinically acceptable in three types of intraoral scanners.