JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Reliability and Accuracy of Digital Impression Obtained from CS-3500 Intraoral Scanner
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Journal of dental hygiene science
  • Volume 15, Issue 5,  2015, pp.673-678
  • Publisher : the Korean Society of Dental Hygiene science
  • DOI : 10.17135/jdhs.2015.15.5.673
 Title & Authors
Reliability and Accuracy of Digital Impression Obtained from CS-3500 Intraoral Scanner
Kim, Sa-Hak; Kim, Jae-Hong; Kim, Chong-Kyen;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of linear measurements in digital models compared to master model. A master model (ANKA-4; Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with the prepared upper full arch tooth was used. Four linear measurements were recorded between landmarks, directly on the master model and the digital models by a single examiner. Measurements were made with a digital caliper from manual model and with the software from the virtual models. The t-test for paired samples and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used for statistical analysis. The measurement of two methods showed good reliability. The mean differences between master and digital model were 0.06~0.12 mm. These in vitro studies show that accuracy and reliability of the digital impression is similar to that of the gold standard. Therefore digital impression was also considered to be a acceptable for placement clinically.
 Keywords
Accuracy;Digital impression;In-office computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing;Reliability;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
캐드캠 시스템에서 사용되는 레진침투 지르코니아 블록의 접착양상과 파절강도,김사학;김종견;김욱태;김재홍;

대한치과기공학회지, 2016. vol.38. 4, pp.273-280 crossref(new window)
 References
1.
Mah J, Hatcher D: Current status and future needs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 6: 10-16, 2003. crossref(new window)

2.
White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle KS: Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137: e451-459, 2010.

3.
Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Barbour ME: Twoand three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 20: 243-249, 2010.

4.
Christensen GJ: The state of fixed prosthodontics impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 136: 343- 346, 2005. crossref(new window)

5.
Christensen GJ: Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 140: 1301-1304, 2009. crossref(new window)

6.
Bindl A, Mormann WH: Clinical and SEM evaluation of all-ceramic chair-side CAD/CAM generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 111: 163-169, 2003. crossref(new window)

7.
Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T, Wakabayashi K: Marginal and internal fit of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM allceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 16: 244-248, 2003.

8.
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 99: 274-281, 2008 crossref(new window)

9.
Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B: Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17: 1-6, 2012.

10.
Ender A, Mehl A: Full arch scans conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14: 11-21, 2011.

11.
Kim KB, Lee GT, Kim HY, Kim JH: The influence of different gypsum materials on the accuracy from complete arch digital impression. J Dent Hyg Sci 12: 617-623, 2012.

12.
Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Int J Nurs Stud 47: 931-936, 2010. crossref(new window)

13.
Lin LI-K: A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45: 255-268, 1989. crossref(new window)

14.
Lim MY, Lim SH: Comparison of model analysis measurements among plaster model, laser scan digital model, and cone beam CT image. Korean J Orthod 39: 6-17, 2009. crossref(new window)

15.
Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P: Assessment of the accuracy of a three dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod 30: 219-223, 2003. crossref(new window)

16.
Watanebe-Kanno GA, Abrao J, Miasiro J, Hiroshi Sanchez-Ayala A, Lagravere MO: Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile 3 digital models. Braz Oral Res 23: 288-295, 2009. crossref(new window)

17.
Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov Al: A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35: 191-201, 2008. crossref(new window)

18.
Kuroda T, Motohashi N, Tominaga R, Iwata R: Threedimensional dental cast analyzing system using laser scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 110: 365-369, 1996. crossref(new window)

19.
Lowey MN: The development of a new method of cephalometric and study cast measuration with a computer controlled, video image capture system. Part II: study cast mensuration. Br J Orthod 20: 315-331, 1993. crossref(new window)

20.
Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR: The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computerbased digital models. Angle Orthod 74: 298-303, 2004.