ABSTRACT
Objective:To evaluate the accuracy of Cerec Bluecam and Cerec Omnicam with 3D printed resin models.Methods:A metal master model including 4 cylindrical metal preparations on the model base,respectively simulating the maxillary canine and the first molar preparations,was prepared.The right canine and the right first molar were respectively marked as A and B,and the left as C and D.The master model was scanned respectively by Cerec Bluecam and Cerec Omnicam for 10 times,10 digital models were genera-ted in Bluecam group and Omnnicam group respectively.Resin models were obtained by a 3D printer based on the digital models,the distance of AB,AC,BD and the diameter(d)of A were respectively measured.Statistical analysis was conducted by SPSS 13.0 soft-ware.Results:The distance of AB,AC,BD of master model and Bluecam group showed significant difference(P 0.05);the distance of AC,BD of master model and Omnicam group showed significant difference(P 0.05).All the distances of the Bluecam group and Omnicam group showed significant difference(P <0.05).Conclusion:The scanning accuracy of Cerec Bluecam is higher than that of Cerec Omnicam in a single preparation scanning.When the scanning area ex-tending,the scanning accuracy of Cerec Omnicam is higher than that of Cerec Bluecam.
ABSTRACT
Objective To study CEREC Bluecam digital impressions in tooth preparation of fixed bridge.Methods Totally 80 patients of tooth preparation of 3 units fixed bridge were divided into experiment group (with CEREC Bluecam digital impressions system) and control group (with traditional method) randomly,and then captured the CEREC Bluecam digital impressions and made the dental models after the tooth preparation.Shoulders width,smooth and continuation of shoulders,paleness of shoulders edge,axial chamfers,axial converge degree,occlusal space and common path of insertion were analyzed.Results In the digital impressions in the equality of shoulders width,smooth and continuation of shoulders,paleness of shoulders edge,axial chamfers,axial converge degree,occlusal space and common path of insertion,the experiment group was better than control group:95.0％ (38 cases) vs.62.5％ (25 cases),92.5％ (37 cases) vs.77.5％ (31 cases),97.5％ (39 cases) vs.75.0％ (30 cases),95.0％ (38 cases) vs.72.5％ (29 cases),90.0％ (36 cases) vs.65.0％ (26 cases),100.0％ (40 cases) vs.52.5％ (21 cases),and 97.5％ (39 cases)vs.75.0％ (30 cases),respectively,all (P＜0.05).In the dental models,the experiment group was better than control group:87.5％ (35 cases) vs.60.0％ (24 cases),97.5％ (39 cases) vs.75.0％ (30 cases),90.0％ (36 cases) vs 62.5％ (25 cases),95.0％ (38 cases) vs 75.0％(30 cases),92.5％ (37 cases) vs 70.0％ (28 cases),100.0％ (40 cases) vs.72.5％ (29 cases),and 100.0％ (40 cases) vs.65.0％ (26 cases),respectively,(all P＜0.05).Conclusions The tooth preparation quality with the CEREC Bluecam digital impressions is better than that of the traditional method.