Ye-Kyu Rhee1, Yoon-Hyuk Huh1, Lee-Ra Cho1, Chan-Jin Park1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriate impression technique by analyzing the superimposition of 3D digital model for evaluating accuracy of conventional impression technique and digital impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients who had no periodontitis or temporomandibular joint disease were selected for analysis. As a reference model, digital impressions with a digital impression system were performed. As a test models, for conventional impression dual-arch and full-arch, impression techniques utilizing addition type polyvinylsiloxane for fabrication of cast were applied. 3D laser scanner is used for scanning the cast. Each 3 pairs for 25 STL datasets were imported into the inspection software. The three-dimensional differences were illustrated in a color-coded map. For three-dimensional quantitative analysis, 4 specified contact locations(buccal and lingual cusps of second premolar and molar) were established. For twodimensional quantitative analysis, the sectioning from buccal cusp to lingual cusp of second premolar and molar were acquired depending on the tooth axis. RESULTS: In color-coded map, the biggest difference between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression was seen (P<.05). In three-dimensional analysis, the biggest difference was seen between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression and the smallest difference was seen between dual-arch and full-arch impression. CONCLUSION: The two- and three-dimensional deviations between intraoral scanner and dual-arch impression was bigger than full-arch and dual-arch impression (P<.05). The second premolar showed significantly bigger three-dimensional deviations than the second molar in the three-dimensional deviations (P>.05).
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriate impression technique by analyzing the superimposition of 3D digital model for evaluating accuracy of conventional impression technique and digital impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients who had no periodontitis or temporomandibular joint disease were selected for analysis. As a reference model, digital impressions with a digital impression system were performed. As a test models, for conventional impression dual-arch and full-arch, impression techniques utilizing addition type polyvinylsiloxane for fabrication of cast were applied. 3D laser scanner is used for scanning the cast. Each 3 pairs for 25 STL datasets were imported into the inspection software. The three-dimensional differences were illustrated in a color-coded map. For three-dimensional quantitative analysis, 4 specified contact locations(buccal and lingual cusps of second premolar and molar) were established. For twodimensional quantitative analysis, the sectioning from buccal cusp to lingual cusp of second premolar and molar were acquired depending on the tooth axis. RESULTS: In color-coded map, the biggest difference between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression was seen (P<.05). In three-dimensional analysis, the biggest difference was seen between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression and the smallest difference was seen between dual-arch and full-arch impression. CONCLUSION: The two- and three-dimensional deviations between intraoral scanner and dual-arch impression was bigger than full-arch and dual-arch impression (P<.05). The second premolar showed significantly bigger three-dimensional deviations than the second molar in the three-dimensional deviations (P>.05).
Authors: Glen H Johnson; Lloyd A Mancl; E Ricardo Schwedhelm; Douglas R Verhoef; Xavier Lepe Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.426