Detailed Information

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

Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners

Authors
Jeon, Jin-HunChoi, Byeong-YeolKim, Chong-MyeongKim, Ji-HwanKim, Hae-YoungKim, Woong-Chul
Issue Date
10월-2015
Publisher
MOSBY-ELSEVIER
Citation
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, v.114, no.4, pp.549 - 553
Indexed
SCIE
SCOPUS
Journal Title
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Volume
114
Number
4
Start Page
549
End Page
553
URI
https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/92248
DOI
10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.019
ISSN
0022-3913
Abstract
Statement of problem. Digital scanning is increasingly used in prosthodontics. Three-dimensional (3D) evaluations that compare the repeatability of the blue-light scanner with that of the white-light scanner are required. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the repeatability of conventional impressions of abutment teeth digitized with white- and blue-light scanners and compare the findings for different types of abutment teeth. Material and methods. Impressions of the canine, premolar, and molar abutment teeth were made and repeatedly scanned with each scanner type to obtain 5 sets of 3D data for each tooth. Point clouds were compared, and error sizes per tooth and scanner type were measured (n=10). One-way ANOVA with Tukey honest significant differences multiple comparison and independent t tests were performed to evaluate repeatability (alpha=.05). Results. Repeatability (mean +/- SD) of the white- and blue-light scanners for canine, premolar, and molar teeth was statistically significant (means: P=.001, P<.001, P<.001; SD: P<.001, P<.001, P=.003). Means of discrepancies with the white-light scanner (P<.001) were 5.8 mu m for the canine, 5.9 mu m for the premolar, and 8.6 mu m for the molar teeth and 4.4 mu m, 2.9 mu m, and 3.2 mu m, respectively, with the blue-light scanner (P<.001). Corresponding SDs of discrepancies with the white-light scanner (P<.001) were 15.9 mu m for the canine, 23.2 mu m for the premolar, and 14.6 mu m for the molar teeth and 9.8 mu m, 10.6 mu m, and 11.2 mu m, respectively, with the blue-light scanner (P=.73). Conclusions. On evaluation of the digitized abutment tooth impressions, the blue-light scanner exhibited greater repeatability than the white-light scanner.
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, Hae Young photo

Kim, Hae Young
보건과학대학 (보건정책관리학부)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE