We have located links that may give you full text access.
In vitro precision evaluation of blue light scanning of abutment teeth made with impressions and dental stone casts according to different 3D superimposition methods.
Journal of Prosthodontic Research 2020 October
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the precision evaluation of blue light scanning of abutment teeth impressions and dental stone casts according to different 3D superimposition methods.
METHODS: Impressions and dental stone casts of the maxillary canine, 1st premolar, and 1st molar were fixed; they were repeatedly scanned 11 times, (6 types, total n = 66). Stereolithography (STL) files were superimposed one by one, and used to obtain 10 root mean square (RMS) values with the 2 superimposition methods (best-fit-alignment, no control). Statistical analysis included the independent t test and one-way ANOVA with Tukey honest significant differences (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: RMS ± Standard Deviation (SD) values for the best-fit-alignment method of the abutment teeth impressions of the maxillary canine, 1st premolar, and 1st molar was 8.07 ± 0.76, 5.03 ± 0.23, and 6.59 ± 0.24, respectively, and those of the no control method were 9.36 ± 0.82, 7.10 ± 1.14, and 8.17 ± 0.36 respectively. RMS ± SD values for the best-fit-alignment method for the dental stone casts were 4.07 ± 0.27, 3.39 ± 0.07, and 3.29 ± 0.07, respectively, and those for the no control method were 6.26 ± 2.50, 4.98 ± 1.16, and 4.55± 0.74, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Using different 3D superimposition methods, blue light scanning of abutment teeth impressions and dental stone casts shows high precision. The no control method showed lower precision best-fit-alignment. However, the results may help advance the digital dental CAD/CAM research and the clinical field of Prosthodontics.
METHODS: Impressions and dental stone casts of the maxillary canine, 1st premolar, and 1st molar were fixed; they were repeatedly scanned 11 times, (6 types, total n = 66). Stereolithography (STL) files were superimposed one by one, and used to obtain 10 root mean square (RMS) values with the 2 superimposition methods (best-fit-alignment, no control). Statistical analysis included the independent t test and one-way ANOVA with Tukey honest significant differences (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: RMS ± Standard Deviation (SD) values for the best-fit-alignment method of the abutment teeth impressions of the maxillary canine, 1st premolar, and 1st molar was 8.07 ± 0.76, 5.03 ± 0.23, and 6.59 ± 0.24, respectively, and those of the no control method were 9.36 ± 0.82, 7.10 ± 1.14, and 8.17 ± 0.36 respectively. RMS ± SD values for the best-fit-alignment method for the dental stone casts were 4.07 ± 0.27, 3.39 ± 0.07, and 3.29 ± 0.07, respectively, and those for the no control method were 6.26 ± 2.50, 4.98 ± 1.16, and 4.55± 0.74, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Using different 3D superimposition methods, blue light scanning of abutment teeth impressions and dental stone casts shows high precision. The no control method showed lower precision best-fit-alignment. However, the results may help advance the digital dental CAD/CAM research and the clinical field of Prosthodontics.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app