DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluating usability of and satisfaction with two types of dental CAD software

두 종류 치과 임플란트 캐드 소프트웨어의 사용자 편의성 및 만족도 비교

  • Kim, Seong-Min (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Wan-Sun (Advanced Dental Device Development Institute, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Son, Keunbada (Advanced Dental Device Development Institute, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Kyu-Bok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • 김성민 (경북대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이완선 (경북대학교 첨단치과의료기기개발연구소) ;
  • 손큰바다 (경북대학교 첨단치과의료기기개발연구소) ;
  • 이규복 (경북대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2018.10.19
  • Accepted : 2018.12.18
  • Published : 2019.03.30

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated the usability of and satisfaction with two types of computer-aided design (CAD) software among users who had experience with dental implant CAD software and those who did not. Materials and Methods: Dental technicians (n = 20) who had previous experience with dental implant CAD Software and students from the College of Dentistry (n = 12) who had never designed implant custom abutments were asked to evaluate two types of CAD Software, Exocad and Deltanine. In addition, the participants were asked to fill out a structured questionnaire (Section 1: Entering basic information and retrieving files; Section 2: Setting conditions before abutment design; Section 3: Setting abutment design; and Section 4: Overall satisfaction). For the statistical analysis of the collected data, Mann-Whitney U test was used (${\alpha}=.05$). Results: The ease of design and satisfaction with the implant CAD Software, evaluated with respect to 21 statements divided into four Stages, were significantly higher for Exocad in both groups for Secion 1. For Sections 2 and 3, participants with experience evaluated Deltanine to be significantly better. For Section 4, both groups evaluated Exocad Software to be better. Conclusion: Overall, the Exocad Software was evaluated as having better usability and offering greater satisfaction. However, in terms of performance in the core of the design process, i.e. Sections 2 and 3, Deltanine was rated higher by the experienced users. Thus, if the user interface design parts are supplemented, Deltanine CAD Software could be put to a wider use in clinics.

목적: 치과 임플란트 캐드 소프트웨어를 사용해 본 경험자와 무경험자에 의한 두 종류 캐드 소프트웨어의 사용자 편의성 및 만족도를 평가하는 것이다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 치과 임플란트 캐드 소프트웨어에 경험이 있는 20명의 치기공사와 캐드 소프트웨어를 사용해보지 않은 12명의 경북대학교 치과대학 학생에게 두 종류의 캐드 소프트웨어(ExoCad, Deltanine)를 이용하여 임플란트 맞춤 지대주(implant custom abutment)를 디자인하도록 하였다. 그리고 구조화된 설문지(1단계: 기본 정보 및 파일 불러오기, 2단계: 지대주 디자인 전 조건 설정, 3단계: 지대주 디자인 설정, 4단계: 전체적인 만족도)를 작성하도록 하였다. 수집된 자료의 통계분석은 Mann-Whitney U test를 사용하였다(${\alpha}=.05$). 결과: 4단계로 나누어 진 21개 문항에 대해 평가된 치과 임플란트 캐드 소프트웨어의 디자인 편의성과 만족도는 1단계의 두 문항에서 모두 Exocad 소프트웨어에서 유의하게 높았습니다. 2단계 및 3단계의 경우 경험이 있는 참가자는 Deltanine 소프트웨어가 훨씬 뛰어나다고 평가했습니다. 4단계에서는 두 문항 모두 Exocad 소프트웨어에서 높은 평가를 받았습니다. 결론: 2 종류 치과 임플란트 캐드 소프트웨어의 편의성 및 만족도 조사에서 Exocad 소프트웨어가 전체적으로 높은 평가를 받았다. 하지만 디자인 과정 중 핵심인 2, 3단계에서 유경험자는 Deltanine 소프트웨어를 높게 평가하였다. 따라서 그외 부분을 보강하면 Deltanine 소프트웨어는 임상에서 널리 사용될 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Tapie L, Chiche N, Boitelle P, Morenton P, Attal JP, Schmitt N, Vennat E. Adaptation measurement of CAD/CAM dental crowns with X-ray micro-CT: metrological chain standardization and 3D gap size distribution. Advances Mater Sci Eng 2016;4:13.
  2. Fasbinder DJ. Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent 2013;26:115-20.
  3. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
  4. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.44
  5. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350
  6. Park JH, Kim JE, Shim JS. Digital workflow for a dental prosthesis that considers lateral mandibular relation. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:340-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.034
  7. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2011;55:559-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011
  8. Koch GK, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ. Accuracy in the digital workflow: from data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:749-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.004
  9. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-4. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054
  10. Lins L, Bemfica V, Queiroz C, Canabarro A. In vitro evaluation of the internal and marginal misfit of CAD/CAM zirconia copings. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:205-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.010
  11. Son KBD, Lee WS, Lee KB. Effect of repeated learning for two dental CAD Software programs. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2017;33:88-96. https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2017.33.2.88
  12. Lijphart A. II. The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research. Comp Polit Stud 1975;8:158-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407500800203
  13. Hyun SE, Park SY. Brand processing difference for experience and no-experience: cultural implications. J Culture Industry 2014;14:159-68.