Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview;Intraoralscanner: Eine aktuelle Übersicht

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 101-129

  Zimmermann, Moritz ^a   Mehl, Albert ^a   Mörmann, Werner H ^a   Reich, Sven ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL RWTH AACHEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Digital impression; Intraoral scanning; Review

Indexed keywords

TOOTH IMPLANT;

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SYSTEM; COST; DATA BASE; DENTAL DEVICE; DENTAL IMPRESSION; DENTAL TECHNOLOGY; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FLUORESCENCE IMAGING; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; TOOTH IMPLANT; TOOTH OCCLUSION; TOOTH PROSTHESIS;

COMPUTER SYSTEMS; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DATABASES AS TOPIC; DENTAL EQUIPMENT; DENTAL IMPLANTS; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL OCCLUSION; DENTAL PROSTHESIS, IMPLANT-SUPPORTED; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; OPTICAL IMAGING; TECHNOLOGY, DENTAL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84938689051     PISSN: 14634201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Joda T, Brägger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015 [epub ahead of print 12 April 2015]. doi: 10.1111/clr.12600
2. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17
3. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21
4. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-1764
5. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of fullarch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18: 1687-1694
6. Zaruba M, Ender A, Mehl A. New applications for three-dimensional follow-up and quality control using optical impression systems and OraCheck. Int J Comput Dent 2014;17:53-64
7. Reiz SD, Neugebauer J, Karapetian VE, Ritter L. Cerec meets Galileos-integrated implantology for completely virtual implant planning. Int J Comput Dent 2014;17:145-157
8. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21
9. Stimmelmayr M, Güth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:851-856
10. Mehl, A. A new concept for the integration of dynamic occlusion in the digital construction process. Int J Comput Dent 2012;15:109-123
11. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17