Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems – An in vitro study

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 177-184

  Vecsei, Bálint ^a   Joós Kovács, Gellért ^a   Borbély, Judit ^a   Hermann, Péter ^a  

^a SEMMELWEIS UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Accuracy; CAD CAM method; Digital impression; Intraoral scanner

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL IMPRESSION; DENTAL PROCEDURE; IN VITRO STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL IMPRESSION MATERIALS; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL MODELS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; IN VITRO TECHNIQUES; LINEAR MODELS; POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 85008324986     PISSN: 18831958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. [1] Shah, N., Bansal, N., Logani, A., Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol 6 (2014), 794–807.
2. [2] Chu, S.J., Trushkowsky, R.D., Paravina, R.D., Dental color matching instruments and systems. Review of clinical and research aspects. J Dent 38:Suppl. 2 (2010), e2–e16.
3. [3] CotruTa, A.M., Mihaescu, C.S., Tanasescu, L.A., Margarit, R., Andrei, O.C., Analyzing the morphology and intensity of occlusal contacts in implant-prosthetic restorations using T-Scan system. Rom J Morphol Embryol 56 (2015), 277–281.
4. [4] Joda, T., Bragger, U., Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implant Res, 2014.
5. [5] Lee, S.J., Gallucci, G.O., Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implant Res 24 (2013), 111–115.
6. [6] Christensen, G.J., Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 139 (2008), 761–763.
7. [7] Yuzbasioglu, E., Kurt, H., Turunc, R., Bilir, H., Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health, 14, 2014, 10.
8. [8] Lee, S.J., Macarthur, R.X., Gallucci, G.O., An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 110 (2013), 420–423.
9. [9] Birnbaum, N.S., Aaronson, H.B., Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend Contin Educ Dent, 29, 2008 pp. 494, 496, 498–505.
10. [10] Davidowitz, G., Kotick, P.G., The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 55 (2011), 559–570 ix.
11. [11] Logozzo, S., Zanetti, E.M., Franceschini, G., Kilpelä, A., Mäkynen, A., Recent advances in dental optics – Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng 54 (2014), 203–221.
12. [12] Miyazaki, T., Hotta, Y., Kunii, J., Kuriyama, S., Tamaki, Y., A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 28 (2009), 44–56.
13. [13] 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 (2013), 1201–1208.
14. [14] Fasbinder, D.J., Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent 26 (2013), 115–120.
15. [15] 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 Dentofac Orthop 144 (2013), 471–478.
16. [16] Ender, A., Mehl, A., Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16 (2013), 11–21.
17. [17] Kattadiyil, M.T., Mursic, Z., AlRumaih, H., Goodacre, C.J., Intraoral scanning of hard and soft tissues for partial removable dental prosthesis fabrication. J Prosthet Dent 112 (2014), 444–448.
18. [18] Patzelt, S.B., Vonau, S., Stampf, S., Att, W., Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 144 (2013), 914–920.
19. [19] Kim, S.Y., Lee, S.H., Cho, S.K., Jeong, C.M., Jeon, Y.C., Yun, M.J., et al. Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model. J Adv Prosthodont 6 (2014), 1–7.
20. [20] Cho, S.H., Schaefer, O., Thompson, G.A., Guentsch, A., Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 113 (2015), 310–315.
21. [21] Hwang, Y.C., Park, Y.S., Kim, H.K., Hong, Y.S., Ahn, J.S., Ryu, J.J., The evaluation of working casts prepared from digital impressions. Oper Dent 38 (2013), 655–662.
22. [22] Kim, S.Y., Kim, M.J., Han, J.S., Yeo, I.S., Lim, Y.J., Kwon, H.B., Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 26 (2013), 161–163.
23. [23] 5725-1 DI. 1997-11, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results – Part 1. 1994.
24. [24] Andriessen, F.S., Rijkens, D.R., van der Meer, W.J., Wismeijer, D.W., Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 111 (2014), 186–194.
25. [25] Hack, G.D., Patzelt, S.B., Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation. ADA Prof Prod Rev 10 (2015), 1–5.
26. [26] Dogan, S., Schwedhelm, E.R., Heindl, H., Mancl, L., Raigrodski, A.J., Clinical efficacy of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials using the one-step two-viscosity impression technique. J Prosthet Dent 114 (2015), 217–222.
27. [27] Caputi, S., Varvara, G., Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 99 (2008), 274–281.
28. [28] de Avila, E.D., Barros, L.A., Del'Acqua, M.A., Castanharo, S.M., Mollo Fde, A. Jr., Comparison of the accuracy for three dental impression techniques and index: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 57 (2013), 268–274.
29. [29] Franco, E.B., da Cunha, L.F., Herrera, F.S., Benetti, A.R., Accuracy of single-step versus 2-step double-mix impression technique. ISRN Dent, 2011, 2011, 341546.
30. [30] Schepke, U., Meijer, H.J., Kerdijk, W., Cune, M.S., Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent 114 (2015), 403–406.e1.
31. [31] Levartovsky, S., Zalis, M., Pilo, R., Harel, N., Ganor, Y., Brosh, T., The effect of one-step vs. two-step impression techniques on long-term accuracy and dimensional stability when the finish line is within the gingival sulcular area. J Prosthodont 23 (2014), 124–133.
32. [32] Rudolph, H., Quaas, S., Haim, M., Preissler, J., Walter, M.H., Koch, R., et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial on the three-dimensional accuracy of fast-set impression materials. Clin Oral Investig 17 (2013), 1397–1406.
33. [33] Lee, S.J., Betensky, R.A., Gianneschi, G.E., Gallucci, G.O., Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implant Res 26 (2015), 715–719.
34. [34] Henkel, G.L., A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent, 28, 2007 pp. 422-4, 426-8, 430-1.
35. [35] Seelbach, P., Brueckel, C., Wostmann, B., Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17 (2013), 1759–1764.
36. [36] Ender, A., Mehl, A., Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions – an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14 (2011), 11–21.
37. [37] 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.
38. [38] Patzelt, S.B., Emmanouilidi, A., Stampf, S., Strub, J.R., Att, W., Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 18 (2014), 1687–1694.
39. [39] Ender, A., Mehl, A., In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 46 (2015), 9–17.
40. [40] Su, T.S., Sun, J., Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 59 (2015), 236–242.
41. [41] Goracci, C., Franchi, L., Vichi, A., Ferrari, M., Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod, 2015.
42. [42] Ender, A., Attin, T., Mehl, A., In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent, 2015.
43. [43] Ender, A., Zimmermann, M., Attin, T., Mehl, A., In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig, 2015.
44. [44] van der Meer, W.J., Andriessen, F.S., Wismeijer, D., Ren, Y., Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS ONE, 7, 2012, e43312.
45. [45] Boeddinghaus, M., Breloer, E.S., Rehmann, P., Wostmann, B., Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig, 2015.