White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions

Jin Hun Jeon, Kyung Tak Lee, Hae-Young Kim, Ji Hwan Kim, Woong Chul Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the digitizing of silicon rubber impressions of abutment teeth by using a white light scanner and compare differences in repeatability between different abutment teeth types. Materials and methods: Silicon rubber impressions of a canine, premolar, and molar tooth were each digitized 8 times using a white light scanner, and 3D surface models were created using the point clouds. The size of any discrepancy between each model and the corresponding reference tooth were measured, and the distribution of these values was analyzed by an inspection software (PowerInspect 2012, Delcamplc., Birmingham, UK). Absolute values of discrepancies were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple comparisons (α=.05). Results: The discrepancy between the impressions for the canine, premolar, and molar teeth were 6.3 μm (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.2), 6.4 μm (95% CI, 5.3-7.6), and 8.9 μm (95% CI, 8.2-9.5), respectively. The discrepancy of the molar tooth impression was significantly higher than that of other tooth types. The largest variation (as mean [SD]) in discrepancies was seen in the premolar tooth impression scans: 26.7 μm (95% CI, 19.7-33.8); followed by canine and molar teeth impressions, 16.3 μm (95% CI, 15.3-17.3), and 14.0 μm (95% CI, 12.3-15.7), respectively. Conclusion: The repeatability of the digitizing abutment teeth's silicon rubber impressions by using a white light scanner was improved compared to that with a laser scanner, showing only a low mean discrepancy between 6.3 μm and 8.9 μm, which was in an clinically acceptable range. Premolar impression with a long and narrow shape showed a significantly larger discrepancy than canine and molar impressions. Further work is needed to increase the digitizing performance of the white light scanner for deep and slender impressions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)452-456
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Advanced Prosthodontics
Volume5
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 Nov 1

Fingerprint

Rubber
Silicon
Tooth
Light
Bicuspid
Confidence Intervals
Canidae
Cuspid
Lasers
Software

Keywords

  • 3D-surface model
  • Dental white light scanner
  • Digital impression
  • Repeatability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry (miscellaneous)
  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions. / Jeon, Jin Hun; Lee, Kyung Tak; Kim, Hae-Young; Kim, Ji Hwan; Kim, Woong Chul.

In: Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, Vol. 5, No. 4, 01.11.2013, p. 452-456.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jeon, Jin Hun ; Lee, Kyung Tak ; Kim, Hae-Young ; Kim, Ji Hwan ; Kim, Woong Chul. / White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions. In: Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. 2013 ; Vol. 5, No. 4. pp. 452-456.
@article{d7af3a8318b14a13bdc5d85122e3ff8f,
title = "White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions",
abstract = "Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the digitizing of silicon rubber impressions of abutment teeth by using a white light scanner and compare differences in repeatability between different abutment teeth types. Materials and methods: Silicon rubber impressions of a canine, premolar, and molar tooth were each digitized 8 times using a white light scanner, and 3D surface models were created using the point clouds. The size of any discrepancy between each model and the corresponding reference tooth were measured, and the distribution of these values was analyzed by an inspection software (PowerInspect 2012, Delcamplc., Birmingham, UK). Absolute values of discrepancies were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple comparisons (α=.05). Results: The discrepancy between the impressions for the canine, premolar, and molar teeth were 6.3 μm (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.2), 6.4 μm (95{\%} CI, 5.3-7.6), and 8.9 μm (95{\%} CI, 8.2-9.5), respectively. The discrepancy of the molar tooth impression was significantly higher than that of other tooth types. The largest variation (as mean [SD]) in discrepancies was seen in the premolar tooth impression scans: 26.7 μm (95{\%} CI, 19.7-33.8); followed by canine and molar teeth impressions, 16.3 μm (95{\%} CI, 15.3-17.3), and 14.0 μm (95{\%} CI, 12.3-15.7), respectively. Conclusion: The repeatability of the digitizing abutment teeth's silicon rubber impressions by using a white light scanner was improved compared to that with a laser scanner, showing only a low mean discrepancy between 6.3 μm and 8.9 μm, which was in an clinically acceptable range. Premolar impression with a long and narrow shape showed a significantly larger discrepancy than canine and molar impressions. Further work is needed to increase the digitizing performance of the white light scanner for deep and slender impressions.",
keywords = "3D-surface model, Dental white light scanner, Digital impression, Repeatability",
author = "Jeon, {Jin Hun} and Lee, {Kyung Tak} and Hae-Young Kim and Kim, {Ji Hwan} and Kim, {Woong Chul}",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4047/jap.2013.5.4.452",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "452--456",
journal = "Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics",
issn = "2005-7806",
publisher = "The Korean Academy of prosthodontics",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions

AU - Jeon, Jin Hun

AU - Lee, Kyung Tak

AU - Kim, Hae-Young

AU - Kim, Ji Hwan

AU - Kim, Woong Chul

PY - 2013/11/1

Y1 - 2013/11/1

N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the digitizing of silicon rubber impressions of abutment teeth by using a white light scanner and compare differences in repeatability between different abutment teeth types. Materials and methods: Silicon rubber impressions of a canine, premolar, and molar tooth were each digitized 8 times using a white light scanner, and 3D surface models were created using the point clouds. The size of any discrepancy between each model and the corresponding reference tooth were measured, and the distribution of these values was analyzed by an inspection software (PowerInspect 2012, Delcamplc., Birmingham, UK). Absolute values of discrepancies were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple comparisons (α=.05). Results: The discrepancy between the impressions for the canine, premolar, and molar teeth were 6.3 μm (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.2), 6.4 μm (95% CI, 5.3-7.6), and 8.9 μm (95% CI, 8.2-9.5), respectively. The discrepancy of the molar tooth impression was significantly higher than that of other tooth types. The largest variation (as mean [SD]) in discrepancies was seen in the premolar tooth impression scans: 26.7 μm (95% CI, 19.7-33.8); followed by canine and molar teeth impressions, 16.3 μm (95% CI, 15.3-17.3), and 14.0 μm (95% CI, 12.3-15.7), respectively. Conclusion: The repeatability of the digitizing abutment teeth's silicon rubber impressions by using a white light scanner was improved compared to that with a laser scanner, showing only a low mean discrepancy between 6.3 μm and 8.9 μm, which was in an clinically acceptable range. Premolar impression with a long and narrow shape showed a significantly larger discrepancy than canine and molar impressions. Further work is needed to increase the digitizing performance of the white light scanner for deep and slender impressions.

AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the digitizing of silicon rubber impressions of abutment teeth by using a white light scanner and compare differences in repeatability between different abutment teeth types. Materials and methods: Silicon rubber impressions of a canine, premolar, and molar tooth were each digitized 8 times using a white light scanner, and 3D surface models were created using the point clouds. The size of any discrepancy between each model and the corresponding reference tooth were measured, and the distribution of these values was analyzed by an inspection software (PowerInspect 2012, Delcamplc., Birmingham, UK). Absolute values of discrepancies were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple comparisons (α=.05). Results: The discrepancy between the impressions for the canine, premolar, and molar teeth were 6.3 μm (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.2), 6.4 μm (95% CI, 5.3-7.6), and 8.9 μm (95% CI, 8.2-9.5), respectively. The discrepancy of the molar tooth impression was significantly higher than that of other tooth types. The largest variation (as mean [SD]) in discrepancies was seen in the premolar tooth impression scans: 26.7 μm (95% CI, 19.7-33.8); followed by canine and molar teeth impressions, 16.3 μm (95% CI, 15.3-17.3), and 14.0 μm (95% CI, 12.3-15.7), respectively. Conclusion: The repeatability of the digitizing abutment teeth's silicon rubber impressions by using a white light scanner was improved compared to that with a laser scanner, showing only a low mean discrepancy between 6.3 μm and 8.9 μm, which was in an clinically acceptable range. Premolar impression with a long and narrow shape showed a significantly larger discrepancy than canine and molar impressions. Further work is needed to increase the digitizing performance of the white light scanner for deep and slender impressions.

KW - 3D-surface model

KW - Dental white light scanner

KW - Digital impression

KW - Repeatability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891095823&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891095823&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4047/jap.2013.5.4.452

DO - 10.4047/jap.2013.5.4.452

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84891095823

VL - 5

SP - 452

EP - 456

JO - Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

JF - Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

SN - 2005-7806

IS - 4

ER -