OBJECTIVES: Digital jaw models offer more extensive possibilities for analysis than casts and make it easier to share and archive relevant information. The aim of this study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of scans performed on alginate impressions and on stone models to reference scans performed on underlying resin models. METHODS: Precision spheres 5 mm in diameter were occlusally fitted to the sites of the first premolars and first molars on a pair of jaw models fabricated from resin. A structured-light scanner was used for digitization. Once the two reference models had been scanned, alginate impressions were taken and scanned after no later than 1 h. A third series of scans was performed on type III stone models derived from the impressions. All scans were analyzed by performing five repeated measurements to determine the distances between the various sphere centers. RESULTS: Compared to the reference scans, the stone-model scans were larger by a mean of 73.6 µm (maxilla) or 65.2 µm (mandible). The impression scans were only larger by 7.7 µm (maxilla) or smaller by 0.7 µm (mandible). Median standard deviations over the five repeated measurements of 1.0 µm for the reference scans, 2.35 µm for the impression scans, and 2.0 µm for the stone-model scans indicate that the values measured in this study were adequately reproducible. CONCLUSION: Alginate impressions can be suitably digitized by structured-light scanning and offer considerably better dimensional accuracy than stone models. Apparently, however, both impression scans and stone-model scans can offer adequate precision for orthodontic purposes. The main issue of impression scans (which is incomplete representation of model surfaces) is being systematically explored in a follow-up study.
OBJECTIVES: Digital jaw models offer more extensive possibilities for analysis than casts and make it easier to share and archive relevant information. The aim of this study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of scans performed on alginate impressions and on stone models to reference scans performed on underlying resin models. METHODS: Precision spheres 5 mm in diameter were occlusally fitted to the sites of the first premolars and first molars on a pair of jaw models fabricated from resin. A structured-light scanner was used for digitization. Once the two reference models had been scanned, alginate impressions were taken and scanned after no later than 1 h. A third series of scans was performed on type III stone models derived from the impressions. All scans were analyzed by performing five repeated measurements to determine the distances between the various sphere centers. RESULTS: Compared to the reference scans, the stone-model scans were larger by a mean of 73.6 µm (maxilla) or 65.2 µm (mandible). The impression scans were only larger by 7.7 µm (maxilla) or smaller by 0.7 µm (mandible). Median standard deviations over the five repeated measurements of 1.0 µm for the reference scans, 2.35 µm for the impression scans, and 2.0 µm for the stone-model scans indicate that the values measured in this study were adequately reproducible. CONCLUSION:Alginate impressions can be suitably digitized by structured-light scanning and offer considerably better dimensional accuracy than stone models. Apparently, however, both impression scans and stone-model scans can offer adequate precision for orthodontic purposes. The main issue of impression scans (which is incomplete representation of model surfaces) is being systematically explored in a follow-up study.
Authors: Eugen S Bud; Vlad I Bocanet; Mircea H Muntean; Alexandru Vlasa; Sorana M Bucur; Mariana Păcurar; Bogdan R Dragomir; Cristian D Olteanu; Anamaria Bud Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Johanna Radeke; Annike B Vogel; Falko Schmidt; Fatih Kilic; Stefan Repky; Jan Beyersmann; Bernd G Lapatki Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-11-27 Impact factor: 3.573