Accuracy of printed models obtained from intraoral scanning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2357-8041.clrd.2021.182995Keywords:
Dental models, Three-dimensional printing, Dimensional accuracyAbstract
Objectives: To compare the accuracy of two methods for the manufacturing of physical models: I) intraoral scanning and resin-printed models; and II) addition silicone impression and gypsum model. Materials and methods: A dental manikin was used as the master model and compared with five gypsum models (g1) and five resin printed models (g2) by analyzing linear measurements at four sites (M1, M2, M3, and M4) using an image measuring instrument. The mean values of the experimental models were compared to those of the master model using one-sample t-test. The samples of each group at the same site were compared with an independent t-test. For all tests, a significance level of 5% (0.05) was considered. Results: The confidence intervals from M1, M2, and M4 sites for both gypsum and resin models presented statistically lower linear distance when compared to the reference values. At m3, the mean value for the gypsum models was not statistically different from the reference mean value (p > 0.05); however, resin-printed models presented a statistically different mean value (p < 0.05), as well as lower values of linear distance. Conclusions: When compared to gypsum models, resin- printed models differed greatly from the master model, indicating the need for standardizing the printing protocol, for its variables may influence printed models accuracy.
Downloads
References
Bhambhani R, Bhattacharya J, Sen SK. Digitization and its futuristic approach in prosthodontics. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(3):165-74. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0181-2
Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Prosthodont. 2016;25(4):282-7. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12410
Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S. The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow – the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(9):2119-25. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0923-5
Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(8):2027-34. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7
Dawood A, Marti Marti B, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J. 2015;219(11):521-9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.914
Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod. 2003;30(3):219-23. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/30.3.219
Cuperus AM, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. A J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(3):308-13. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.031
Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(1):108-15. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.011
Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(6):715-9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12375
Kasparova M, Grafova L, Dvorak P, Dostalova T, Prochazka A, Eliasova H, et al. Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3D digital study models. Biomed Eng Online. 2013;12:49. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-925x-12-49
Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(2):225-32. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002
Alhouri N, McCord JF, Smith PW. The quality of dental casts used in crown and bridgework. Br Dent J. 2004;197(5):261-4. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811621
Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(4):310-5. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.027
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. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(13)60028-1
Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent. 2016;55:68-74. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002
Park ME, Shin SY. Three-dimensional comparative study on the accuracy and reproducibility of dental casts fabricated by 3D printers. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(5):861.e1-861.e7. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.08.020
Kumar V, Aeran H. Evaluation of effect of tray space on the accuracy of condensation silicone, addition silicone and polyether impression materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2012;12(3):154-60. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0124-y
Caputi S, Varvara G. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(4):274-81. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(08)60061-x
Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(4):343-9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a35524
Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46(1):3-12. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3
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 Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(3):471-8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Fernando Igai, Washington Steagall Junior, Pedro Tortamano Neto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors are requested to send, together with the letter to the Editors, a term of responsibility. Thus, the works submitted for appreciation for publication must be accompanied by a document containing the signature of each of the authors, the model of which is presented as follows:
I/We, _________________________, author(s) of the work entitled_______________, now submitted for the appreciation of Clinical and Laboratorial Research in Dentistry, agree that the authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Date: ____/____/____Signature(s): _______________
