Literature DB >> 25557006

Comparison of the accuracy of a 3-dimensional virtual method and the conventional method for transferring the maxillary cast to a virtual articulator.

Eneko Solaberrieta1, Rikardo Mínguez2, Lander Barrenetxea2, Jose Ramon Otegi2, András Szentpétery3.   

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The currently available virtual articulators fail to locate the digitized maxillary cast at the exact position in the virtual environment. Some locate the casts on a mechanical articulator with a facebow, and this position is then digitized for the virtual environment.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the location of the maxillary cast on an articulator by using 2 different procedures: the conventional method and a virtual method.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: With the conventional procedure, the kinematic axis of the participant was determined with an axiograph. The location of the maxillary cast in reference to this axis was then physically transferred to a Panadent mechanical articulator. By a virtual procedure, the same kinematic axis and the maxillary cast were transferred directly from the participant to the Panadent virtual articulator by means of reverse engineering devices. The locations obtained with both procedures were compared in a virtual environment with an optical scanner. By calculating the deviation at every point of the occlusal surface, the results obtained with this procedure were then compared with those of the conventional method.
RESULTS: The mean deviation on the occlusal surface was 0.752 mm, and the standard deviation was 0.456 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: The deviation between the procedures was sufficiently small to allow the methodology for orthodontic purposes. However, the accuracy of the virtual procedure should be improved so as to extend its use to other fields, such as orthognathic surgery or dental restorations, in which the clinical technique requires an articulator.
Copyright © 2015 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25557006     DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthet Dent        ISSN: 0022-3913            Impact factor:   3.426


  5 in total

1.  Trueness and Precision of Economical Smartphone-Based Virtual Facebow Records.

Authors:  Junying Li; Zhaozhao Chen; Ann M Decker; Hom-Lay Wang; Tim Joda; Gustavo Mendonca; Luca Lepidi
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 2.752

2.  Comparison of the occlusal contact area of virtual models and actual models: a comparative in vitro study on Class I and Class II malocclusion models.

Authors:  Hyemin Lee; Jooly Cha; Youn-Sic Chun; Minji Kim
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 2.757

3.  A 3D cephalometric protocol for the accurate quantification of the craniofacial symmetry and facial growth.

Authors:  Manuel Pinheiro; Xinhui Ma; Michael J Fagan; Grant T McIntyre; Ping Lin; Gautham Sivamurthy; Peter A Mossey
Journal:  J Biol Eng       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 4.355

4.  Integration and Application of Multimodal Measurement Techniques: Relevance of Photogrammetry to Orthodontics.

Authors:  Dariusz Pojda; Agnieszka Anna Tomaka; Leszek Luchowski; Michał Tarnawski
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 5.  Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use.

Authors:  Reinhilde Jacobs; Benjamin Salmon; Marina Codari; Bassam Hassan; Michael M Bornstein
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 2.757

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.