0 732

Cited 26 times in

Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author박지만-
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-01T16:40:31Z-
dc.date.available2018-11-01T16:40:31Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/164974-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To calculate the precision of the implant analog position in digital models generated from different computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems compared to gypsum models acquired from conventional implant impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In five patients in need of a single implant crown, a within-subject comparison was performed applying four different manufacturing processes for the implant model. Each implant was scanned with three different intraoral scanners: iTero Cadent (ITE), Lava True Definition (LTD), and Trios 3Shape (TRI). All digital implant models were fabricated using the corresponding certified CAD-CAM workflow. In addition, a conventional impression was taken (CON) and a gypsum model fabricated. Three consecutive impressions were acquired with each impression system. Following fabrication, all implant models were scanned. The datasets were aligned by a repeated best-fit algorithm and the precision for the implant analog and the adjacent teeth was measured. The precision served as a measure for reproducibility. RESULTS: Mean precision values of the implant analog in the digital models were 57.2 ± 32.6 µm (ITE), 88.6 ± 46.0 µm (TRI), and 176.7 ± 120.4 µm (LTD). Group CON (32.7 ± 11.6 µm) demonstrated a statistically significantly lower mean precision value for the implant position in the implant model as compared to all other groups representing a high reproducibility. The mean precision values for the reference ranged between 31.4 ± 3.5 µm (TRI) and 39.5 ± 16.5 µm (ITE). No statistical significant difference was calculated between the four treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The conventional implant model represented the greatest reproducibility of the implant position. Digital implant models demonstrated less precision compared to the conventional workflow.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherJohn Wiley and Sons, Inc.-
dc.relation.isPartOfCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.titlePrecision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Dentistry (치과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Prosthodontics (보철과학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSven Mühlemann-
dc.contributor.googleauthorElena A. Greter-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJi‐Man Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChristoph H. F. Hämmerle-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDaniel S. Thoma-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.13349-
dc.contributor.localIdA05595-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00600-
dc.identifier.eissn1600-0501-
dc.identifier.pmid30168207-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/clr.13349-
dc.contributor.alternativeNamePark, Ji-Man-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor박지만-
dc.citation.volume29-
dc.citation.number9-
dc.citation.startPage931-
dc.citation.endPage936-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Vol.29(9) : 931-936, 2018-
dc.identifier.rimsid58294-
dc.type.rimsART-
Appears in Collections:
2. College of Dentistry (치과대학) > Dept. of Prosthodontics (보철과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.