ABSTRACT
Purpose@#Using two types of electronic apex locators, this study aimed to investigate the differences in accuracy according to the evaluator and equipment. @*Materials and Methods@#Artificial teeth of the lower first premolars and two mandibular acrylic models (A and B) were used in this study. In the artificial teeth, the pulp chamber was opened and the access cavity was prepared.Using calibrated digital Vernier calipers, the distance from the top of the cavity and the root apex was measured to assess the actual distance between two artificial teeth. The evaluation was conducted by 20 dentists, and each evaluator repeated measurements for each electronic apex locator five times. The difference between the actual distance from the top of the cavity to the root apex and the distance measured using electronic measuring equipment was compared. For statistical analysis, the Friedman test the Mann–Whitney U-test were conducted and the differences between groups were analyzed (α=0.05).Result: As for the accuracy of measurement according to the two types of electronic apex locators, the value of the measurement error was 0.4753 mm in Dentaport ZX and 0.3321 mm in E-Cube Plus. Moreover, electronic apex locators Dentaport ZX and E-Cube Plus showed statistically significant differences (P<0.05). As for the difference in the accuracy of the two types of electronic apex locators according to the evaluator, the resulting values differed depending on the evaluator and showed a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). @*Conclusion@#Electronic apex locator E-Cube Plus showed higher accuracy than did Dentaport ZX. Nevertheless, both types of electronic apex locators showed 100% accuracy in finding the region within root apex ±0.5 mm zone. Fur-thermore, according to the evaluator, the two electronic apex locators showed different resulting values.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE@#The present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a desktop scanner and intraoral scanners based on the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch. @*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#Seven reference models were fabricated based on the volumetric dimensions of complete arch (70%, 80%, 90%, 100%, 110%, 120%, and 130%). The reference models were digitized using an industrial scanner (Solutionix C500; MEDIT) for the fabrication of a computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM). The reference models were digitized using three intraoral scanners (CS3600, Trios3, and i500) and one desktop scanner (E1) to fabricate a CAD test model (CTM). CRM and CTM were then superimposed using inspection software, and 3D analysis was conducted. For statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance was used to verify the difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch and the accuracy based on the scanners, and the differences among the groups were analyzed using the Tukey HSD test as a post-hoc test (α=.05). @*RESULTS@#The three different scanners showed a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P<.05), but the desktop scanner did not show a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P=.808). @*CONCLUSION@#The accuracy of the intraoral scanners was dependent on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch, but the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch had no effect on the accuracy of the desktop scanner. Additionally, depending on the type of intraoral scanners, the accuracy differed according to the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch.
ABSTRACT
Purpose@#Using two types of electronic apex locators, this study aimed to investigate the differences in accuracy according to the evaluator and equipment. @*Materials and Methods@#Artificial teeth of the lower first premolars and two mandibular acrylic models (A and B) were used in this study. In the artificial teeth, the pulp chamber was opened and the access cavity was prepared.Using calibrated digital Vernier calipers, the distance from the top of the cavity and the root apex was measured to assess the actual distance between two artificial teeth. The evaluation was conducted by 20 dentists, and each evaluator repeated measurements for each electronic apex locator five times. The difference between the actual distance from the top of the cavity to the root apex and the distance measured using electronic measuring equipment was compared. For statistical analysis, the Friedman test the Mann–Whitney U-test were conducted and the differences between groups were analyzed (α=0.05).Result: As for the accuracy of measurement according to the two types of electronic apex locators, the value of the measurement error was 0.4753 mm in Dentaport ZX and 0.3321 mm in E-Cube Plus. Moreover, electronic apex locators Dentaport ZX and E-Cube Plus showed statistically significant differences (P<0.05). As for the difference in the accuracy of the two types of electronic apex locators according to the evaluator, the resulting values differed depending on the evaluator and showed a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). @*Conclusion@#Electronic apex locator E-Cube Plus showed higher accuracy than did Dentaport ZX. Nevertheless, both types of electronic apex locators showed 100% accuracy in finding the region within root apex ±0.5 mm zone. Fur-thermore, according to the evaluator, the two electronic apex locators showed different resulting values.
ABSTRACT
Purpose@#The purpose of this study was to evaluate the machining precision and the marginal and internal fit of single restorations fabricated with three types of lithium disilicate ceramic blocks and to evaluate the correlation. @*Materials and methods@#Single restorations were designed using a CAD software program. The crown designed model file was extracted from the CAD software program. Three types of lithium disilicate blocks (Rosetta; HASS, IPS e.max CAD; Ivoclar vivadent, VITA Suprinity; VITA) were milled using a milling machine. For the fabrication of the crown scanned model file, the intaglio surface of the restoration was digitized using a contact scanner. Then, using the three-dimensional inspection software (Geomagic control X; 3D Systems), the process of the overlap of the crown designed model and the scanned model and 3-dimensional analysis was conducted. In addition, the marginal and internal fit of the crowns was evaluated by a silicone replication method. The difference among three types of single ceramic crown was analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis H test, and Spearman correlation analysis was performed to analyze the correlation between machining precision and fitness (α=.05) @*Results@#There was a significant difference in the machining precision and the marginal and internal fit according to the type of ceramic block (P<.001). In addition, the machining precision and the marginal and internal fit were positively correlated (P<.001). @*Conclusion@#The marginal fit of crowns fabricated according to the types of ceramic blocks was within the clinically acceptable range (< 120 µm), so it can be regarded as appropriate machining precision applicable to all clinical as aspects in terms of the marginal fit.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE@#The present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a desktop scanner and intraoral scanners based on the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch. @*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#Seven reference models were fabricated based on the volumetric dimensions of complete arch (70%, 80%, 90%, 100%, 110%, 120%, and 130%). The reference models were digitized using an industrial scanner (Solutionix C500; MEDIT) for the fabrication of a computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM). The reference models were digitized using three intraoral scanners (CS3600, Trios3, and i500) and one desktop scanner (E1) to fabricate a CAD test model (CTM). CRM and CTM were then superimposed using inspection software, and 3D analysis was conducted. For statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance was used to verify the difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch and the accuracy based on the scanners, and the differences among the groups were analyzed using the Tukey HSD test as a post-hoc test (α=.05). @*RESULTS@#The three different scanners showed a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P<.05), but the desktop scanner did not show a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P=.808). @*CONCLUSION@#The accuracy of the intraoral scanners was dependent on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch, but the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch had no effect on the accuracy of the desktop scanner. Additionally, depending on the type of intraoral scanners, the accuracy differed according to the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to verify the effect of the abutment superimposition process on the final virtual model in the scanning process of single and 3-units bridge model using a dental model scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A gypsum model for single and 3-unit bridges was manufactured for evaluating. And working casts with removable dies were made using Pindex system. A dental model scanner (3Shape E1 scanner) was used to obtain CAD reference model (CRM) and CAD test model (CTM). The CRM was scanned without removing after dividing the abutments in the working cast. Then, CTM was scanned with separated from the divided abutments and superimposed on the CRM (n=20). Finally, three-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic control X) was used to analyze the root mean square (RMS) and Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis (α=.05). RESULTS: The RMS mean abutment for single full crown preparation was 10.93 µm and the RMS average abutment for 3 unit bridge preparation was 6.9 µm. The RMS mean of the two groups showed statistically significant differences (P<.001). In addition, errors of positive and negative of two groups averaged 9.83 µm, −6.79 µm and 3-units bridge abutment 6.22 µm, −3.3 µm, respectively. The mean values of the errors of positive and negative of two groups were all statistically significantly lower in 3-unit bridge abutments (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Although the number of abutments increased during the scan process of the working cast with removable dies, the error due to the superimposition of abutments did not increase. There was also a significantly higher error in single abutments, but within the range of clinically acceptable scan accuracy.