Cited 33 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.author | 박지만 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-11-01T16:40:31Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-11-01T16:40:31Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0905-7161 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/164974 | - |
dc.description.abstract | OBJECTIVE: 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.statementOfResponsibility | restriction | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.publisher | John Wiley and Sons, Inc. | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH | - |
dc.rights | CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR | - |
dc.rights | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/ | - |
dc.title | Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.college | College of Dentistry (치과대학) | - |
dc.contributor.department | Dept. of Prosthodontics (보철과학교실) | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Sven Mühlemann | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Elena A. Greter | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Ji‐Man Park | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Christoph H. F. Hämmerle | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Daniel S. Thoma | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/clr.13349 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A05595 | - |
dc.relation.journalcode | J00600 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1600-0501 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 30168207 | - |
dc.identifier.url | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/clr.13349 | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Park, Ji-Man | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 박지만 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 29 | - |
dc.citation.number | 9 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 931 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 936 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Vol.29(9) : 931-936, 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.rimsid | 58294 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.