Journal of Technologic Dentistry (대한치과기공학회지)

Korean Academy of Dental Technology (대한치과기공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of repeated measurement stability of dentition type of maxillary anterior tooth: an in vitro study

상악 전치의 치열 형태에 따른 스캔 반복 측정 안정성 평가: in vitro 연구

  • Park, Dong-In (Department of Dental Laboratory Science & Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Son, Ho-Jung (Department of Dental Laboratory Science & Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Woong-Chul (Department of Dental Laboratory Science & Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Hwan (Department of Dental Laboratory Science & Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University)
  • 박동인 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공) ;
  • 손호정 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공) ;
  • 김웅철 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공) ;
  • 김지환 (고려대학교 대학원 보건과학과 치의기공전공)
  • Received : 2019.07.31
  • Accepted : 2019.09.27
  • Published : 2019.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the repeated measurement stability of scans related to dentition type. Methods: A normal model and the crowding and diastema models are also duplicated using duplicating silicon. After that, a plaster model is made using a plaster-type plaster on the duplicate mold, and each model is scanned 5 times by using an extraoral scanner. The gingival part and molar part were deleted from the 3D STL file data obtained through scanning. Using the 3D stl file obtained in this way, data is nested between model groups. Thereafter, RMS values obtained were compared and evaluated. The normality test of the data was performed for the statistical application of repeated measurements with dentition type, and the normality was satisfied. Therefore, the one-way ANOVA test, which is a parametric statistical method, was applied, and post-tests were processed by the Scheffe method. Results: The average size of each RMS in the Normal, Diastema, and Crowding groups was Normal> Crowding> Diastema. However, the standard deviation was in the order of Crowding> Normal> Diastema. The average value of each data is as follows. Diastema model was the smallest ($5.51{\pm}0.55{\mu}m$), followed by the crowding model ($12.30{\pm}2.50{\mu}m$). The normal model showed the maximum error ($13.23{\pm}1.06{\mu}m$). Conclusion: There was a statistically significant difference in the repeatability of the scanning measurements according to the dentition type. Therefore, you should be more careful when scanning the normal intense or crowded dentition than scanning the interdental lining. However, this error value was within the range of applicable errors for all clinical cases.

Keywords

References

  1. Bernabe E, Flores-Mir C. Orthodontic treatment need in Peruvian young adults evaluated through dental aesthetic index. AO, 76(3), 417-21, 2006.
  2. Bohner LOL, Canto GDL, Marcio BS, Lagana DC, Sesma N, Neto PT. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent, 118(5), 617-23, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.11.018
  3. Brosky ME, Pesun IJ, Lowder PD, DeLong R, Hodges JS. Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent, 87(2), 204-9, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.121240
  4. De Villaumbrosia PG, Martinez-Rus F, Garcia-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradies G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies, J Prosthet Dent, 116(4), 543-50, e1, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.025
  5. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent, 115(3), 313-20, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
  6. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of completearch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent, 109(2), 121-8, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  7. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthed Dent ofacial Orthop, 144(3), 471-8, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
  8. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin oral Investig, 17(4), 1201-8, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0
  9. Ji-Eon Jang, Kui-Ye Yang, Sun-Rak Jeong, Youn-Hee Choi. Oral health status of some dental practitioners and the relevance of use and awareness of oral care products for life care. JKEIA, 12(2), 189-96, 2018. https://doi.org/10.21184/jkeia.2018.2.12.2.189
  10. Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner repro ducibility and imaget rueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent, 119(2), 225-32, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002
  11. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Makynen A. Recent advances in dental optics-Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. OPTICS, 54, 203-21, 2014.
  12. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent, 112(6), 1461-71, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027
  13. Normando D, Almeida MA, Quintao CC. Dental crowding: the role of genetics and tooth wear. AO, 83(1), 10-5, 2012.
  14. Parel, S, A system for definitive restoration of single-stage implants in one day. Dentistry today 21(2), 106-111, 2002
  15. Ragain JC, Grosko ML, Raj M, Ryan TN, Johnston WM. Detail reproduction, contact angles, and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die material combinations. IJP, 13(3), 2000.
  16. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent, 118(1), 36-42 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024
  17. Schaefer O, Schmidt M, Goebel R, Kuepper H. Qualitative and quantitative threedimensional accuracy of a single tooth captured by elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent, 108(3), 165-72, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60141-3
  18. Trifkovic B, Budak I, Todorovic A, Vukelic D, Lazic V, Puskar T. Comparative analysis on measuring performances of dental intraoral and extraoral optical 3D digitization systems. Measurement, 47,45-53, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.08.051
  19. Vogtlin C, Schulz G, Jager K, Muller B. Comparing the accuracy of master models based on digital intra-oral scanners with conventional plaster casts. PM, 1,20-6. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2016.58769
  20. Wang W, Yu H, Liu Y, Jiang X, Gao B. Trueness analysis of zirconia crowns fabricated with 3-dimensional printing. J Prosthet Dent, 2018.