Literature DB >> 30454854

Impression of Subgingival Dental Preparation Can Be Taken with Ultrasound.

Juliana Marotti1, Judith Broeckmann2, Fabrice Chuembou Pekam3, Luciano Praça2, Klaus Radermacher3, Stefan Wolfart2.   

Abstract

Because of its ability to capture hard structures behind soft tissue, ultrasound-based micro-scanning may be a promising alternative for taking digital impressions of teeth, especially in the case of subgingival margin preparations. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of ultrasound impressions taken of subgingivally prepared teeth compared with digital optical impressions. Ten extracted human teeth (7 pre-molars, 3 molars) were prepared for crowns with chamfer finish line and then digitized using two different intra-oral scanners (Cara Trios, 3 Shape, Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany; and Lava COS; 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and one extra-oral scanner (Cares CS2, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland). Afterward, the preparation margin was covered with porcine gingiva (thickness ranged between 0.3 and 0.9 mm), and every sample was scanned with a high-frequency ultrasound scanner under experimental subgingival conditions. Optical scanning processes were performed without gingiva. The data sets were superimposed on each other for pairwise comparisons, and deviations between different scans were determined using a 3-D evaluation software (CloudCompare). Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc tests (Dunn-Bonferroni) were applied to detect significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. The ultrasound scanner was able to detect subgingival preparation margins. Mean deviations for all comparisons ranged from 12.34 to 46.38 µm. There were no statistically significant differences between superimpositions of intra-oral and extra-oral scans (Trios-Lava, Lava-CS2, Trios-CS2), whereas in comparisons between intra-/extra-oral scans and ultrasound scans, mean deviations were statistically significantly higher. There were no significant differences with respect to type of tooth (pre-molar and molar). However, gingiva thickness was significantly correlated with the quality of the ultrasound scan; thin layers had better image quality than thicker layers. Ultrasound was able to scan tooth preparation margins covered with gingiva, although with less accuracy than achieved by conventional optical scanners (non-covered margins). Gingiva thickness may play an important role in ultrasound scan accuracy.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CAD/CAM; Digital impression; Tooth impression; Tooth preparation; Ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30454854     DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.09.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol        ISSN: 0301-5629            Impact factor:   2.998


  4 in total

1.  Periodontal evaluation using a non-invasive imaging method (ultrasonography).

Authors:  Radu Chifor; Alexandru Florin Badea; Ioana Chifor; Delia-Alexandrina Mitrea; Maria Crisan; Mindra Eugenia Badea
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2019-12-15

2.  Evaluation of gingival displacement methods in terms of periodontal health at crown restorations produced by digital scan: 1-year clinical follow-up.

Authors:  Beyza Ünalan Değirmenci; Beyza Karadağ Naldemir; Alperen Değirmenci
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 3.161

3.  Accuracy Report on a Handheld 3D Ultrasound Scanner Prototype Based on a Standard Ultrasound Machine and a Spatial Pose Reading Sensor.

Authors:  Radu Chifor; Tiberiu Marita; Tudor Arsenescu; Andrei Santoma; Alexandru Florin Badea; Horatiu Alexandru Colosi; Mindra-Eugenia Badea; Ioana Chifor
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 3.576

4.  High-Frequency Ultrasound for Assessment of Peri-Implant Bone Thickness.

Authors:  Juliana Marotti; Sarah Neuhaus; Daniel Habor; Lauren Bohner; Stefan Heger; Klaus Radermacher; Stefan Wolfart
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 4.241

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.