• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.177-183
• /
• 2006

Objectives : In this study we examined the association between the genetic markers ACE (A-240T, C-93T, I/D, A2350G), AGT (M235T), AT1R (A1166C), CYP11B2 (T344C, V386A), REN (G2646A), ADRB2 (G46A, C79G, T47C, T1641), GNB3 (C825T) and ADD1 (G460W) and the presence of essential hypertension in adolescents. Methods : The Kangwha Study is an 18-year prospective study that is aimed at elucidating the determinants of the blood pressure level from childhood to early adulthood. For this study, we constructed a case-control dataset of size of 277 and 40 family trios data from the Kangwha Study. For this purpose, we perform a single locus-based case-control association study and a single locus-based TDT (transmission/disequilibrium test) study. Results : In the case-control study, the single locus-based association study indicated that the ADD1 (G460W) (p=0.0403), AGT (M235T) (p=0.0002), and REN (G2646A) (p=0.0101) markers were significantly associated with the risk of hypertension. These results were not confirmed on the TDT study. This study showed that genetic polymorphisms of the ADD1, AGT and REN genes might be related to the hypertension in Korean adolescents. Conclusions : This study provided useful information on genetics markers related to blood pressure. Further study will be needed to confirm the effect of the alpha adducin gene, the angiotensinogen gene and the renin gene on essential hypertension.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.11 no.5
• /
• pp.262-270
• /
• 2019

PURPOSE. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal misfits of three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and digital impressions techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty brass canine and second premolar abutment preparations were fabricated by using a computer numerical control machine and were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=10) as follows: conventional impression group (Group Ci), Cerec Omnicam (Group Cdi), and 3shape TRIOS-3 (Group Tdi) digital impression groups. The laser-sintered metal frameworks were designed and fabricated with conventional and digital impressions. The marginal adaptation was assessed with a stereomicroscope at ${\times}30$ magnification. The data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and the independent simple t tests. RESULTS. A statistically significant difference was found between the frameworks fabricated by conventional methods and those fabricated by digital impression methods. Multiple comparison results revealed that the frameworks in Group Ci (average, $98.8{\pm}16.43{\mu}m$; canine, $93.59{\pm}16.82{\mu}m$; premolar, $104.10{\pm}15.02{\mu}m$) had larger marginal misfit values than those in Group Cdi (average, $63.78{\pm}14.05{\mu}m$; canine, $62.73{\pm}13.71{\mu}m$; premolar, $64.84{\pm}15.06{\mu}m$) and Group Tdi (average, $65.14{\pm}18.05{\mu}m$; canine, $70.64{\pm}19.02{\mu}m$; premolar, $59.64{\pm}16.10{\mu}m$) (P=.000 for average; P=.001 for canine; P<.001 for premolar). No statistical difference was found between the marginal misfits of canine and premolar abutment teeth within the same groups (P>.05). CONCLUSION. The three-unit frameworks fabricated with digital impression techniques showed better marginal fit compared to conventional impression techniques. All marginal misfit values were clinically acceptable.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.107-116
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. Several studies focused on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners in implant dentistry, but the data of inter-implant distances were not widely mentioned. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of distance between two implants on the surface distortion of scanned models generated by intra-oral scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three models with the distances between two fixed scan bodies of 7, 14, and 21 mm were fabricated and scanned with a highly precise D900L dental laboratory scanner as reference models. Fifteen scans were performed with TRIOS3 and CEREC Omnicam intra-oral scanners. Trueness, precision, and angle deviation of the test models were analyzed (α=.05). RESULTS. There was a significant difference among inter-implant distances in both intraoral scanners (P<.001). The error of trueness and precision increased with the increasing inter-implant length, while the angle deviation did not show the same trend. A significant difference in the angle deviation was found among the inter-implant distance. The greatest angle deviation was reported in the 14-mm group of both scanners (P<.05). In contrast, the lowest angle deviation in the 21-mm group of the TR scanner and the 7-mm of the CR scanner was reported (P<.001). CONCLUSION. The inter-implant distance affected the accuracy of intra-oral scanner. The error of trueness and precision increased along with the increasing distance between two implants. However, the distortions were not clinically significant. Regarding angle deviation, the clinically significant angle deviation may be possible when using intra-oral scanners in the partially edentulous arch.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.361-368
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a desktop scanner and intraoral scanners based on the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Seven reference models were fabricated based on the volumetric dimensions of complete arch (70%, 80%, 90%, 100%, 110%, 120%, and 130%). The reference models were digitized using an industrial scanner (Solutionix C500; MEDIT) for the fabrication of a computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM). The reference models were digitized using three intraoral scanners (CS3600, Trios3, and i500) and one desktop scanner (E1) to fabricate a CAD test model (CTM). CRM and CTM were then superimposed using inspection software, and 3D analysis was conducted. For statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance was used to verify the difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch and the accuracy based on the scanners, and the differences among the groups were analyzed using the Tukey HSD test as a post-hoc test (α=.05). RESULTS. The three different scanners showed a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P<.05), but the desktop scanner did not show a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P=.808). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of the intraoral scanners was dependent on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch, but the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch had no effect on the accuracy of the desktop scanner. Additionally, depending on the type of intraoral scanners, the accuracy differed according to the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.51 no.2
• /
• pp.95-104
• /
• 2021

Objective: To evaluate the trueness and precision of full-arch scans acquired using five intraoral scanners and investigate the factors associated with the dimensional accuracy of the intraoral scan data. Methods: Nine adult participants (mean age, 34.3 ± 8.3 years) were recruited. Four zirconium spheres (Ø 6 mm) were bonded to the canines and the molars. Following acquisition of reference scans using an industrial-grade scanner, five intraoral scanners, namely i500, CS3600, Trios 3, iTero, and CEREC Omnicam, were used to scan the arches. Linear distances between the four reference spheres were automatically calculated, and linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare the trueness and precision of the intraoral scan data among the different scanners. Results: The absolute mean trueness and precision values for all intraoral scanners were 76.6 ± 79.3 and 56.6 ± 52.4 ㎛, respectively. The type of scanner and the measured linear distances had significant effects on the accuracy of the intraoral scan data. With regard to trueness, errors in the intermolar dimension and the distance from the canine to the contralateral molar were greater with Omnicam than with the other scanners. With regard to precision, the error in the linear distance from the canine to the molar in the same quadrant was greater with Omnicam and CS3600 than with the other scanners. Conclusions: The dimensional accuracy of intraoral scan data may differ significantly according to the type of scanner, with the amount of error in terms of trueness being clinically significant.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.52 no.1
• /
• pp.20-28
• /
• 2022

Objective: Although, digital models have recently been used in orthodontic clinics, physical models are still needed for a multitude of reasons. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the printed models can replace the plaster models by evaluating their accuracy in reproducing intermaxillary relationships and by appraising the clinicians' ability to measure the printed models. Methods: Twenty sets of patients' plaster models with well-established occlusal relationships were selected. Models were scanned using an intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape Dental System) by a single operator. Printed models were made with ZMD-1000B light-curing resin using the stereolithography method 3-dimensional printer. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility were evaluated using measurements obtained by three operators. Results: In evaluation of validity, all items showed no significant differences between measurements taken from plaster and printed models. In evaluation for reliability, significant differences were found in the distance between the gingival zeniths of #23-#33 (DZL_3) for the plaster models and at #17-#43 (DZCM_1) for the printed models. In evaluation for reproducibility, the plaster models showed significant differences between operators at midline, and printed models showed significant differences at 7 measurements including #17-#47 (DZR_7). Conclusions: The validity and reliability of intermaxillary relationships as determined by the printed model were clinically acceptable, but the evaluation of reproducibility revealed significant inter-operator differences. To use printed models as substitutes for plaster models, additional studies on their accuracies in measuring intermaxillary relationship are required.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.5
• /
• pp.294-304
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different palatal vault configurations on the accuracy and scan speed of intraoral scans (IO) of completely edentulous arches. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three different virtual models of a completely edentulous maxillary arch with different palatal vault heights- Cl I moderate (U-shaped), Cl II deep (steep) and Cl III shallow (flat)-were digitally designed using CAD software (Meshmixer; Autodesk, USA) and 3D-printed using SLA-based 3D-printer (XFAB; DWS, Italy) (n = 30; 10 specimens per group). Each model was scanned using intraoral scanner (Trios 3; 3Shape^TM, Denmark). Scanning time was recorded for all samples. Scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) were evaluated using digital subtraction technique using Geomagic Control X v2020 (Geomagic; 3DSystems, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to detect differences in scanning time, trueness and precision among the test groups. Statistical significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS. The scan process could not be completed for Class II group and manufacturer's recommended technique had to be modified. ANOVA revealed no statistically significant difference in trueness and precision values among the test groups (P=.959 and P=.658, respectively). Deep palatal vault (Cl II) showed significantly longer scan time compared to Cl I and III. CONCLUSION. The selection of scan protocol in complex cases such as deep palatal vault is of utmost importance. The modified, adopted longer path scan protocol of deep vault cases resulted in increased scan time when compared to the other two groups.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.179-188
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital intraoral scanners in a completely edentulous patient with angled and parallel implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 6 implants were placed at angulations of 0°, 5°, 0°, 0°, 15°, and 0° in regions #36, #34, #32, #42, #44, and #46, respectively, in a completely edentulous mandibular polyurethane model. Then, the study model created by connecting a scan body on the implants was scanned using a model scanner, and a 3D reference model was obtained. Three different intraoral scanners were used for digital impressions (PS group, TR group, and CS group, n = 10 in each group). The distances and angles between the scan bodies in these measurement groups were measured. RESULTS. While the Primescan (PS) impression group had the highest accuracy with 38 ㎛, the values of 104 ㎛ and 171 ㎛ were obtained with Trios 4 IOSs (TR) and Carestream 3600 (CS), respectively (P = .001). The CS scanner constituted the impression group with the highest deviation in terms of accuracy. In terms of dimensional differences in the angle parameter, a statistically significant difference was revealed among the mean deviation angle values according to the scanners (P < .001). While the lowest angular deviation was obtained with the PS impression group with 0.185°, the values of 0.499° and 1.250° were obtained with TR and CS, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected among the impression groups in terms of precision values (P > .05). CONCLUSION. A statistically significant difference was found among the three digital impression groups upon comparing the impression accuracy. Implant angulation affected the impression accuracy of the digital impression groups. The most accurate impressions in terms of both distance and angle deviation were obtained with the PS impression group.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.254-263
• /
• 2023

Objective: The evidence on the accuracy of bite registration using intraoral scanners is sparse. This study aimed to develop a new method for evaluating bite registration accuracy using intraoral scanners. Methods: Two different types of models were used; 10 stone models and 10 with acrylic resin teeth. A triangular frame with cylindrical posts at each apex (one anterior and two posteriors) was digitally designed and manufactured using three-dimensional (3D) printing. Such a structure was fitted in the lingual space of each maxillary and mandibular model so that, in occlusion, the posts would contact their opposing counterparts, enforcing a small interocclusal gap between the two arches. This ensured no tooth interference and full contact between opposing posts. Bite registration accuracy was evaluated by measuring the distance between opposing posts, with small values indicating high-accuracy. Three intraoral scanners were used: Medit i500, Primescan, and Trios 4. Viewbox software was used to measure the distance between opposing posts and compute roll and pitch. Results: The average maximum error in interocclusal registration exceeded 50 ㎛. Roll and pitch orientation errors ranged above 0.1 degrees, implying an additional interocclusal error of around 40 ㎛ or more. The models with acrylic teeth exhibited higher errors. Conclusions: A method that avoids the need for reference hardware and the imprecision of locating reference points on tooth surfaces, and offers simplicity in the assessment of bite registration with an intraoral scanner, was developed. These results suggest that intraoral scanners may exhibit clinically significant errors in reproducing the interocclusal relationships.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.149-155
• /
• 2023

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the presence of a space maintainer affects the accuracy of an intraoral scanner. Materials and Methods: The maxillary primary first molar typodont tooth was removed from the primary dentition typodont model and a band and loop type space maintainer was delivered. After the model was connected to a dental phantom, intraoral scan was performed using TRIOS 4 (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). The scan was repeated with the same technique without the space maintainer. Each scan was performed 10 times. All scan files into a GOM inspect 2018 software and evaluated the accuracy. The accuracy was evaluated on trueness and precision, and calculated using the root mean square value. Result: When there was a space maintainer in the oral cavity, the trueness value was 0.10±0.02 mm and the precision value was 0.15±0.03 mm. In the absence of the space maintainer, the trueness value was 0.12±0.03 mm and the precision value was 0.16±0.04 mm. There were no significant differences depending on the presence of a space maintainer (P>0.05). Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, the accuracy of the intraoral scanner was not influenced by the presence of space maintainer.