Amaç: Günümüzde, implant üstü sabit restorasyonlar için dijital ölçü ve üretim aşamasına geçilmiştir. Fakat geleneksel yöntemlerle elde edilen ölçü ve/veya alçı modellerinin, ağız dışı tarayıcılarda taratılmasının ne kadar hassas olduğu hâlen tartışma konusudur. Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı, 3 adet ağız dışı tarayıcının doğruluğunu değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Taranabilir Tip 4 alçı ile dişsiz bir alt çene modeli oluşturulmuştur. Kanin, 1. premolar ve 1. molar bölgelerine 6 adet implant analogu yerleştirilmiştir. Analoglar üzerine TiBase abutmentler ve Scan Body parçaları yerleştirildikten sonra 3 adet de ağız dışı (D800, inEOS X5, ArcticaScan) tarayıcı ile onar kez taranmıştır. Elde edilen veriler programlarla STL formatına dönüştürülmüştür. Ayrıca alçı model, kontrol grubunun oluşturulması amacıyla endüstriyel tarayıcı (ATOS Core 80) ile taranmıştır. Dental ve endüstriyel tarayıcılardan elde edilen veriler daha sonra yüzey bazında 3 boyutlu karşılaştırma programında değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Çalışma verileri değerlendirilirken normal dağılım göstermeyen parametrelerin gruplar arası karşılaştırmalarında Kruskal-Wallis testi ve farklılık gösteren grupların birbirleriyle olan ilişkilerinin değerlendirilmesinde Mann-Whitney U testi kullanılmıştır (p<0.05). Cihazlar yüzey çakıştırmalarına göre sıralandıklarında D800 kontrol grubuna en yakın doğrulukta bulunmuştur. ArcticaScan ve inEOS X5 13-20 μm değer aralığında doğruluk göstermişlerdir. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda kullanılan ağız dışı tarayıcılar endüstriyel tarayıcılara oldukça yakın değerlerde doğruluk göstermişlerdir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Diş kalıp materyalleri; diş ölçü tekniği; analog-dijital dönüşümü; diş protezi, implant destekli
Objective: Today, digital impression and digital manufacturing has been started for implant supported fixed restorations. However, the accuracy of scanning impression and/or gypsum models obtained with conventional methods in extra-oral scanners is stil a matter of debate. The aim of this in-vitro study is to evaluate the trueness of three different extra-oral scanners. Material and Methods: An edentulous mandibular model was manufactured using scannable Type 4 gypsum. Six implant analogues were placed in canine, first premolar and first molar regions. After TiBase abutments and Scan Bodies were screwed on the analogs, model was scanned ten times in each of the three scanners (D800, inEOS X5 and ArcticaScan). The data obtained were transformed into STL format with the programs. Additionally, in order to compose the control group, the referance model was also scanned by the industrial Scanner. The two sets of data collected from the dental and the industrial scanners were then compared through three-dimensional software on the surface basis. Results: During the evaluation of the data obtained in the study, Kruskal-Wallis test was employed for the comparison of the parameters exhibiting a non-standard distribution pattern, while Mann-Whitney U test was utilized for assessing the relations between groups differing from each other (p<0.05). When the studied devices were arranged in order based on surface superimpositioning, D800 was found to have the trueness rate which was the closest to the control group. On the other hand, ArcticaScan and inEOSx5 exhibited a trueness rate between 13 μm and 20 μm. Conclusion: The extra-oral scanners employed within this study were found to have trueness values considerably close to the industrial scanners.
Keywords: Dental impression materials; dental impression technique; analog-digital conversion; dental prosthesis, implant-supported
- Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(2):121-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, et al. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(8):610-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(11):853-74. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Vojdani M, Torabi K, Farjood E, Khaledi A. Comparison the marginal and internal fit of metal copings cast from wax patterns fabricated by CAD/CAM and conventional wax up techniques. J Dent (Shiraz). 2013;14(3):118-29. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Strub JR, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(9):1289-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009;140(10):1301-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008;10;204(9):505-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ender A, Mehl A. [Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study]. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11-21. [PubMed]
- Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S. [Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression]. Int J Comput Dent. 2005;8(4):283-94. [PubMed]
- Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(6):755-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(6):1461-71. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hack GD, Patzelt SBM. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitroinvestigation. American Dental Association. 2015;10(4):1-5. [Link]
- Mandelli F, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Gherlone E, Ferrari M. Improvement of a digital impression with conventional materials: overcoming intraoral scanner limitations. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(4):373-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Luthardt RG, Sandkuhl O, Herold V, Walter MH. Accuracy of mechanical digitizing with a CAD/CAM system for fixed restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14(2):146-51. [PubMed]
- Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(4):1201-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Güth JF, Happe A, Beuer F. Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(4):1137-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kurtzman GM, Dompkowski DF. Using digital impressions and CAD/CAM in implant dentistry. Dent Today. 2014;33;114:6-7. [Link]
- ISO. 5725-1: 1994, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results-part 1: general principles and definitions. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva; 1994. [Link]
- Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T. [Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera]. Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12(1):11-28. [PubMed]
- Ongül D, Gökçen-Röhlig B, Şermet B, Keskin H. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of different direct impression techniques for multiple implants. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(2):184-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 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. 2014;47:45-53. [Crossref]
- Techiques GOM. Atos core optical 3D scanner for small and medium-size components. 2013. (Kaynak bulunamadı, kaynağa direkt olarak ulaşılabilecek link bilgisi paylaşılmalıdır.)
- Steinhäuser-Andresen S, Detterbeck A, Funk C, Krumm M, Kasperl S, Holst A, et al. [Pilot study on accuracy and dimensional stability of impression materials using industrial CT technology]. J Orofac Orthop. 2011;72(2):111-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent. 2007;35(12):903-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Luthardt RG, Bornemann G, Lemelson S, Walter MH, Hüls A. An innovative method for evaluation of the 3-D internal fit of CAD/CAM crowns fabricated after direct optical versus indirect laser scan digitizing. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17(6):680-5. [PubMed]
- Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Güth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization--a laboratory study. Dent Mater. 2014;30(4):400-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mandelli F, Gherlone E, Gastaldi G, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the accuracy of extraoral laboratory scanners with a single-tooth abutment model: a 3D analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(4):363-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Flügge 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 Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(3):471-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: Process List