Literature DB >> 36068382

Comparison of the dimensional and morphological accuracy of three-dimensional digital dental casts digitized using different methods.

Jiahui Ye1, Shimin Wang2, Zixuan Wang2, Yunsong Liu1, Yuchun Sun3, Hongqiang Ye4, Yongsheng Zhou1.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental casts from plaster cast scanning (PCS), impression scanning (IPS), intraoral scanning (IOS), and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning (CCS) methods. The maxillary and mandibular dental casts of 15 patients who needed CBCT scans for oral examination or treatment were digitized via four methods. 12 linear distance measurements of all digital dental casts were selected and acquired with software and compared to those of the reference plaster cast to evaluate the dimensional accuracy. Three-dimensional deviation analysis of the IPS, IOS and CCS groups with respect to the reference PCS group was performed to evaluate the morphological accuracy. The discrepancy in linear distances between the digital dental casts and reference plaster casts was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The dimensional accuracies of the PCS (0.06 ± 0.12 mm) and IPS (0.03 ± 0.05 mm) casts were better than those of the IOS (0.37 ± 0.30 mm) and CCS (0.54 ± 0.40 mm) casts. The one-sample t test showed that there were statistically significant differences between the discrepancies in 8 of the linear distances for the PCS group and 9 of the linear distances for the IPS group between the digital dental casts and reference plaster casts, with an ideal error of 0.00 (p < 0.05). The sequence of morphological accuracy from good to poor was maxillary and mandibular IPS, mandibular IOS; maxillary IOS; and maxillary and mandibular CCS. The accuracy of the digital dental casts from the PCS and IPS methods was greater than that of IOS and CCS methods. Although accuracy of the digital dental cast from IOS was low, it satisfied the clinical requirements for fixed restorations in small units. The accuracy of the digital dental cast from CCS was poorest and could only be used for procedures with lower accuracy requirements.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Society of The Nippon Dental University.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cone-beam computed tomography; Dimensional; Intraoral Scanner; Morphological; Three-dimensional

Year:  2022        PMID: 36068382     DOI: 10.1007/s10266-022-00736-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Odontology        ISSN: 1618-1247            Impact factor:   2.885


  18 in total

1.  Comparison of 3-dimensional dental models from different sources: diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis.

Authors:  Sercan Akyalcin; David J Dyer; Jeryl D English; Cagla Sar
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  Accuracy and eligibility of CBCT to digitize dental plaster casts.

Authors:  Kathrin Becker; Ulf Schmücker; Frank Schwarz; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.

Authors:  Yuki Tomita; Jun Uechi; Masahiro Konno; Saera Sasamoto; Masahiro Iijima; Itaru Mizoguchi
Journal:  Dent Mater J       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 4.  Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review.

Authors:  Hidemichi Kihara; Wataru Hatakeyama; Futoshi Komine; Kyoko Takafuji; Toshiyuki Takahashi; Jun Yokota; Kenta Oriso; Hisatomo Kondo
Journal:  J Prosthodont Res       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 4.642

5.  Surface quality and long-term dimensional stability of current elastomeric impression materials after disinfection.

Authors:  Mary P Walker; Meagan Rondeau; Cynthia Petrie; Amy Tasca; Karen Williams
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2007-06-09       Impact factor: 2.752

6.  A Comparison of the Accuracy of Linear Measurements Obtained from Cone Beam Computerized Tomography Images and Digital Models.

Authors:  Ben Creed; Chung How Kau; Jeryl D English; James J Xia; Robert P Lee
Journal:  Semin Orthod       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 0.970

7.  Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Jooseong Kim; Giseon Heo; Manuel O Lagravère
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-08-19       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Accuracy of intraoral scans in the mixed dentition: a prospective non-randomized comparative clinical trial.

Authors:  Konrad Liczmanski; Thomas Stamm; Cristina Sauerland; Moritz Blanck-Lubarsch
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 2.151

9.  Accuracy and reliability of a novel method for fusion of digital dental casts and Cone Beam Computed Tomography scans.

Authors:  Frits A Rangel; Thomas J J Maal; Ewald M Bronkhorst; K Hero Breuning; Jan G J H Schols; Stefaan J Bergé; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.