Accuracy in the digital workflow: From data acquisition to the digitally milled cast

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Volumn 115, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 749-754

  Koch, George K ^a   Gallucci, German O ^a   Lee, Sang J ^a  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL CASTING; DENTAL IMPRESSION; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOFTWARE; TOOTH CROWN; TOOTH IMPLANT;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; CROWNS; DENTAL CASTING TECHNIQUE; DENTAL IMPLANTS; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL PROSTHESIS DESIGN; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84955445596     PISSN: 00223913     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. 1 Andersson, M., Oden, A., A new all-ceramic crown. A dense-sintered, high-purity alumina coping with porcelain. Acta Odontol Scand 51 (1993), 59–64.
2. 2 Andersson, M., Carlsson, L., Persson, M., Bergman, B., Accuracy of machine milling and spark erosion with a CAD/CAM system. J Prosthet Dent 76 (1996), 187–193.
3. 3 Mormann, W.H., The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc 137 Suppl (2006), 7S–13S.
4. 4 Ender, A., Mehl, A., Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions–an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14 (2011), 11–21.
5. 5 Luthardt, R.G., Loos, R., Quaas, S., Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8 (2005), 283–294.
6. 6 Christensen, G.J., Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Amer Dent Assoc 140 (2009), 1301–1304.
7. 7 Ender, A., Mehl, A., Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109 (2013), 121–128.
8. 8 Flugge, T.V., Schlager, S., Nelson, K., Nahles, S., Metzger, M.C., Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144 (2013), 471–478.
9. 9 International Organization for Standardization. ISO-5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results — Part 1: General principles and definitions. 1994, ISO, Geneva Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-1:v1:en Accessed May 19, 2015.
10. 10 Ziegler, M., Digital impression taking with reproducibly high precision. Int J Comput Dent 12 (2009), 159–163.
11. 11 Rudolph, H., Luthardt, R.G., Walter, M.H., Computer-aided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM technology. Comput Biol Med 37 (2007), 579–587.
12. 12 Persson, A., Andersson, M., Oden, A., Sandborgh-Englund, G., A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch-probe scanner. J Prosthet Dent 95 (2006), 194–200.
13. 13 Persson, A.S., Andersson, M., Oden, A., Sandborgh-Englund, G., Computer aided analysis of digitized dental stone replicas by dental CAD/CAM technology. Dent Mater 24 (2008), 1123–1130.
14. 14 Steinhauser-Andresen, S., Detterbeck, A., Funk, C., Krumm, M., Kasperl, S., Holst, A., et al. Pilot study on accuracy and dimensional stability of impression materials using industrial CT technology. J Orofac Orthop 72 (2011), 111–124.
15. 15 Guth, J.F., Keul, C., Stimmelmayr, M., Beuer, F., Edelhoff, D., Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17 (2012), 1201–1208.
16. 16 Lee, S.J., Betensky, R.A., Gianneschi, G.E., Gallucci, G.O., Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 26 (2015), 715–719.
17. 17 Ku, H., Notes on the use of propagation of error formulas. J Res Natl Bur Stand 70 (1966), 263–273.