ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Digital dentistry is a ubiquitous phenomenon nowadays but it requires access to technologies and learning curve. To aid digital workflow implementation, digital steps can be progressively incorporated in conventional workflows. We aimed to demonstrate a multidisciplinary oral rehabilitation performed mixing conventional procedures with digital open-source software programs and low-cost devices. A 46-year-old female patient had photographs, intraoral scans, and cone-beam computed tomography obtained and used in combination with conventional clinical exams to develop a treatment plan. Power point software was used for digital smile planing and Horos for digital implant planning. The digital dataset were used to guide conventional clinical procedures (scaling and root planning, gingivoplasty, in-office tooth bleaching, fiber-post restoration, implant and bone graft placement, teeth preparation, and protheses design and milling). The inclusion of digital steps in the conventional workflow enabled the performance of rehabilitation procedures with reduced clinical time and increased predictability, favoring the overall workflow and the communication among the different dental specialties. A mixed workflow can progressively lead to an exclusively digital workflow as technologies become accessible and learning curve is coped.
RESUMO Atualmente, a Odontologia digital é um fenômeno onipresente, contudo exige acesso à tecnologia e curva de aprendizado. Para auxiliar na implementação de fluxos de trabalho digitais, etapas digitais podem ser progressivamente incorporadas nos fluxos de trabalho convencionais. Nosso objetivo foi demonstrar uma reabilitação oral multidisciplinar realizada combinando procedimentos convencionais e ferramentas digitais de baixo custo e acesso aberto. Uma paciente de 46 anos teve fotografias, exames intraorais e tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico obtidos e usados em combinação com exame clínico convencional para desenvolvimento de um plano de tratamento. O software Power Point foi utilizado para o planejamento digital do sorriso e o Horos para o planejamento digital dos implantes. O conjunto de dados digitais foi usado para orientar a execução dos procedimentos clínicos convencionais (raspagem e alisamento radicular, gengivoplastia, clareamento dental, restauração com pino de fibra de vidro, inserção de implantes e enxerto ósseo, preparos protéticos e design e fresagem protética). A inclusão de etapas digitais no fluxo de trabalho convencional permitiu redução do tempo clínico na realização da reabilitação aliado à maior previsibilidade, favorecendo o fluxo de trabalho e a comunicação entre as diferentes especialidades odontológicas. O fluxo de trabalho misto pode progressivamente levar a um fluxo de trabalho exclusivamente digital à medida que as tecnologias se tornem acessíveis e a curva de aprendizado superada.
ABSTRACT
Aim: To compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of cost-accessible three-dimensional (3D) printed models. Methods: A maxillary typodont (MM) was scanned and printed 10 times in polylactic acid, resulting in 10 digital models (DMs). Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were made to obtain 10 conventional stone models (SMs). All models were scanned and imported to CloudCompare software. The total area and three locations of interest were evaluated (zenith to incisal [Z-I], canine to canine [C-C], and first molar to canine [1M-C] distances). Total area evaluations were performed by aligning the MM and experimental models using the best-fit algorithm and were compared using the Haussdorf distance. The distances between points of interest were measured using the point-picking tool at the same 3D coordinates. The mean volumetric deviations were considered for trueness analysis. Precision was set as the standard deviation. Statistical differences were evaluated using the Student's t-test. Results:Total area volumetric comparisons showed that DMs showed superior trueness and precision (-0.02 ± 0.03) compared to the SMs (0.37 ± 0.29) (P < 0.001). No differences between the models were observed for Z-I (P = .155); however, SMs showed fewer deviations for C-C (P = .035) and 1M-C (P = .001) than DMs. Conclusions: The DMs presented superior trueness and precision for total area compared to the SMs; however, the SMs were more accurate when points of interest were evaluated