Detailed Information

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Trueness and precision of scanning abutment impressions and stone models according to dental CAD/CAM evaluation standards

Authors
Jeon, Jin-HunHwang, Seong-SigKim, Ji-HwanKim, Woong-Chul
Issue Date
10월-2018
Publisher
KOREAN ACAD PROSTHODONTICS
Keywords
Trueness; Precision; Scanning; Dental computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/ CAM); Evaluation standard
Citation
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS, v.10, no.5, pp.335 - 339
Indexed
SCIE
SCOPUS
KCI
Journal Title
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS
Volume
10
Number
5
Start Page
335
End Page
339
URI
https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/72565
DOI
10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.335
ISSN
2005-7806
Abstract
PURPOSE. The purpose of the present study was to compare scanning trueness and precision between an abutment impression and a stone model according to dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) evaluation standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS. To evaluate trueness, the abutment impression and stone model were scanned to obtain the first 3-dimensional (3-D) stereolithography (STL) file. Next, the abutment impression or stone model was removed from the scanner and re-fixed on the table; scanning was then repeated so that 11 files were obtained for each scan type. To evaluate precision, the abutment impression or stone model was scanned to obtain the first 3-D STL, file. Without moving it, scanning was performed 10 more times, so that 11 files were obtained for each scan type. By superimposing the first scanned STL, file onto the other STL. files one by one, 10 color-difference maps and reports were obtained; i.e., 10 experimental scans per type. The independent t-test was used to compare root mean square (RMS) data between the groups (alpha=.05). RESULTS. The RMS +/- SD values of scanning trueness of the abutment impression and stone model were 22.4 +/- 4.4 and 17.4 +/- 3.5 mu m, respectively (P<.012). The RMS +/- SD values of scanning precision of the abutment impression and stone model were 16.4 +/- 2.9 and 14.6 +/- 1.6 mu m, respectively (P=.108). CONCLUSION. There was a significant difference in scanning trueness between the abutment impression and stone model, as evaluated according to dental CAD/CAM standards. However, all scans showed high trueness and precision.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
College of Health Sciences > Division of Health Policy and Management > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Researcher Kim, Ji Hwan photo

Kim, Ji Hwan
보건과학대학 (보건정책관리학부)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE