Cargando…

Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model

PURPOSE: The accuracy of a gypsum model (GM), which was taken using a conventional silicone impression technique, was compared with that of a polyurethane model (PM), which was taken using an iTero™ digital impression system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The maxillary first molar artificial tooth was sele...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, So-Yeun, Lee, So-Hyoun, Cho, Seong-Keun, Jeong, Chang-Mo, Jeon, Young-Chan, Yun, Mi-Jung, Huh, Jung-Bo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2014
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24605199
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.1.1
_version_ 1782479087285043200
author Kim, So-Yeun
Lee, So-Hyoun
Cho, Seong-Keun
Jeong, Chang-Mo
Jeon, Young-Chan
Yun, Mi-Jung
Huh, Jung-Bo
author_facet Kim, So-Yeun
Lee, So-Hyoun
Cho, Seong-Keun
Jeong, Chang-Mo
Jeon, Young-Chan
Yun, Mi-Jung
Huh, Jung-Bo
author_sort Kim, So-Yeun
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The accuracy of a gypsum model (GM), which was taken using a conventional silicone impression technique, was compared with that of a polyurethane model (PM), which was taken using an iTero™ digital impression system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The maxillary first molar artificial tooth was selected as the reference tooth. The GMs were fabricated through a silicone impression of a reference tooth, and PMs were fabricated by a digital impression (n=9, in each group). The reference tooth and experimental models were scanned using a 3 shape convince™ scan system. Each GM and PM image was superimposed on the registered reference model (RM) and 2D images were obtained. The discrepancies of the points registered on the superimposed images were measured and defined as GM-RM group and PM-RM group. Statistical analysis was performed using a Student's T-test (α=0.05). RESULTS: A comparison of the absolute value of the discrepancy revealed a significant difference between the two groups only at the occlusal surface. The GM group showed a smaller mean discrepancy than the PM group. Significant differences in the GM-RM group and PM-RM group were observed in the margins (point a and f), mesial mid-axial wall (point b) and occlusal surfaces (point c and d). CONCLUSION: Under the conditions examined, the digitally fabricated polyurethane model showed a tendency for a reduced size in the margin than the reference tooth. The conventional gypsum model showed a smaller discrepancy on the occlusal surface than the polyurethane model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3942521
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39425212014-03-06 Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model Kim, So-Yeun Lee, So-Hyoun Cho, Seong-Keun Jeong, Chang-Mo Jeon, Young-Chan Yun, Mi-Jung Huh, Jung-Bo J Adv Prosthodont PURPOSE: The accuracy of a gypsum model (GM), which was taken using a conventional silicone impression technique, was compared with that of a polyurethane model (PM), which was taken using an iTero™ digital impression system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The maxillary first molar artificial tooth was selected as the reference tooth. The GMs were fabricated through a silicone impression of a reference tooth, and PMs were fabricated by a digital impression (n=9, in each group). The reference tooth and experimental models were scanned using a 3 shape convince™ scan system. Each GM and PM image was superimposed on the registered reference model (RM) and 2D images were obtained. The discrepancies of the points registered on the superimposed images were measured and defined as GM-RM group and PM-RM group. Statistical analysis was performed using a Student's T-test (α=0.05). RESULTS: A comparison of the absolute value of the discrepancy revealed a significant difference between the two groups only at the occlusal surface. The GM group showed a smaller mean discrepancy than the PM group. Significant differences in the GM-RM group and PM-RM group were observed in the margins (point a and f), mesial mid-axial wall (point b) and occlusal surfaces (point c and d). CONCLUSION: Under the conditions examined, the digitally fabricated polyurethane model showed a tendency for a reduced size in the margin than the reference tooth. The conventional gypsum model showed a smaller discrepancy on the occlusal surface than the polyurethane model. The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2014-02 2014-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3942521/ /pubmed/24605199 http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.1.1 Text en © 2014 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Kim, So-Yeun
Lee, So-Hyoun
Cho, Seong-Keun
Jeong, Chang-Mo
Jeon, Young-Chan
Yun, Mi-Jung
Huh, Jung-Bo
Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model
title Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model
title_full Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model
title_fullStr Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model
title_short Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model
title_sort comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24605199
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.1.1
work_keys_str_mv AT kimsoyeun comparisonoftheaccuracyofdigitallyfabricatedpolyurethanemodelandconventionalgypsummodel
AT leesohyoun comparisonoftheaccuracyofdigitallyfabricatedpolyurethanemodelandconventionalgypsummodel
AT choseongkeun comparisonoftheaccuracyofdigitallyfabricatedpolyurethanemodelandconventionalgypsummodel
AT jeongchangmo comparisonoftheaccuracyofdigitallyfabricatedpolyurethanemodelandconventionalgypsummodel
AT jeonyoungchan comparisonoftheaccuracyofdigitallyfabricatedpolyurethanemodelandconventionalgypsummodel
AT yunmijung comparisonoftheaccuracyofdigitallyfabricatedpolyurethanemodelandconventionalgypsummodel
AT huhjungbo comparisonoftheaccuracyofdigitallyfabricatedpolyurethanemodelandconventionalgypsummodel