Chairside-systeme: Eine aktuelle übersicht;Chairside systems: A current review

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 123-149

  Zaruba, Markus ^a   Mehl, Albert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Chairside systems; Digital impression taking; Grinding milling units; Intraoral scanner; Review

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL IMPRESSION; DENTAL TECHNOLOGY; DEVICES; HUMAN; POINT OF CARE SYSTEM; PROSTHESIS DESIGN;

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL PROSTHESIS DESIGN; HUMANS; POINT-OF-CARE SYSTEMS; TECHNOLOGY, DENTAL;

EID: 85028666632     PISSN: 14634201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Mörmann WH. The origin of the Cerec method: a personal review of the first 5 years. Int J Comput Dent 2004;7:11-24
2. Mörmann WH. The evolution of the Cerec system. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137(suppl):7S-13S
3. Joda T, Brägger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:e185-e189
4. 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
5. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21
6. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-1764
7. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of fullarch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18: 1687-1694
8. 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
9. Mehl A, Koch R, Zaruba M, Ender A. 3D monitoring and quality control using intraoral optical camera systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:23-36
10. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1495-1504
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
12. Bosch G, Ender A, Mehl A. Non-and minimally invasive full-mouth rehabilitation of patients with loss of vertical dimension of occlusion using CAD/CAM: an innovative concept demonstrated with a case report. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18:273-286
13. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21
14. Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the Trios Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016;47:343-349
15. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J Prosthodont 2016 [epub ahead of print 2 Aug 2016]. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527
16. Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 [epub ahead of print 6 May 2016]. doi: 10.1111/clr.12853
17. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 [Epub ahead of print 31 Dec 2016]. doi: 10.1111/clr.12994
18. Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann DR, Heydecke G. Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:328-335