Display options
Cite
Rhee YK, Huh YH, Cho LR, et al. Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7(6):460-7doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460.
Rhee, Y. K., Huh, Y. H., Cho, L. R., & Park, C. J. (2015). Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition. The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 7(6), 460-7. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460
Rhee, Ye-Kyu, et al. "Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition." The journal of advanced prosthodontics vol. 7,6 (2015): 460-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460
Rhee YK, Huh YH, Cho LR, Park CJ. Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015 Dec;7(6):460-7. doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460. Epub 2015 Dec 30. PMID: 26816576; PMCID: PMC4722150.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Adv Prosthodont. 2015 Dec;7(6):460-7. doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460. Epub 2015 Dec 30.

Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition.

The journal of advanced prosthodontics

Ye-Kyu Rhee, Yoon-Hyuk Huh, Lee-Ra Cho, Chan-Jin Park

Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Republic of Korea.

PMID: 26816576 PMCID: PMC4722150 DOI: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriate impression technique by analyzing the superimposition of 3D digital model for evaluating accuracy of conventional impression technique and digital impression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients who had no periodontitis or temporomandibular joint disease were selected for analysis. As a reference model, digital impressions with a digital impression system were performed. As a test models, for conventional impression dual-arch and full-arch, impression techniques utilizing addition type polyvinylsiloxane for fabrication of cast were applied. 3D laser scanner is used for scanning the cast. Each 3 pairs for 25 STL datasets were imported into the inspection software. The three-dimensional differences were illustrated in a color-coded map. For three-dimensional quantitative analysis, 4 specified contact locations(buccal and lingual cusps of second premolar and molar) were established. For twodimensional quantitative analysis, the sectioning from buccal cusp to lingual cusp of second premolar and molar were acquired depending on the tooth axis.

RESULTS: In color-coded map, the biggest difference between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression was seen (P<.05). In three-dimensional analysis, the biggest difference was seen between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression and the smallest difference was seen between dual-arch and full-arch impression.

CONCLUSION: The two- and three-dimensional deviations between intraoral scanner and dual-arch impression was bigger than full-arch and dual-arch impression (P<.05). The second premolar showed significantly bigger three-dimensional deviations than the second molar in the three-dimensional deviations (P>.05).

Keywords: Intraoral scanning; Laser scanning; Three-dimensional deviation; Two-dimensional deviation

References

  1. J Dent. 2010 Jul;38(7):553-9 - PubMed
  2. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997 Sep;128(9):1277-81 - PubMed
  3. J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Sep;78(3):255-9 - PubMed
  4. J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Oct;100(4):285-91 - PubMed
  5. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Dec;112(6):1461-71 - PubMed
  6. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Aug;90(2):143-9 - PubMed
  7. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jul-Aug;29(4):853-62 - PubMed
  8. Aust Dent J. 2005 Jun;50(2):90-4 - PubMed
  9. J Prosthet Dent. 2010 Jan;103(1):13-22 - PubMed
  10. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jun;139(6):761-3 - PubMed
  11. Aust Dent J. 2011 Jun;56 Suppl 1:97-106 - PubMed
  12. J Prosthet Dent. 2009 Dec;102(6):362-7 - PubMed
  13. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Jun;16(3):851-6 - PubMed
  14. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Aug;139(8):1123-5 - PubMed
  15. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Sep;90(3):228-34 - PubMed
  16. J Prosthodont. 2015 Jun;24(4):313-21 - PubMed
  17. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Jun;141 Suppl 2:15S-9S - PubMed
  18. Dent Mater. 2003 Jan;19(1):19-24 - PubMed
  19. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 May;17(4):1201-8 - PubMed
  20. Gen Dent. 2000 Jan-Feb;48(1):86-91 - PubMed
  21. Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Jul;18(6):1687-94 - PubMed
  22. Int J Prosthodont. 1991 Mar-Apr;4(2):169-74 - PubMed
  23. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 May;87(5):510-5 - PubMed
  24. J Prosthet Dent. 2009 May;101(5):332-41 - PubMed
  25. Quintessence Int. 2001 Nov-Dec;32(10):805-10 - PubMed
  26. Oper Dent. 2010 May-Jun;35(3):324-9 - PubMed
  27. J Prosthet Dent. 1999 Jan;81(1):7-13 - PubMed
  28. J Dent. 2007 Dec;35(12):903-8 - PubMed
  29. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Sep;17(7):1759-64 - PubMed
  30. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Jul;94(1):10-92 - PubMed
  31. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Jun;26(6):715-9 - PubMed
  32. J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8 - PubMed

Publication Types