Cargando…

Accuracy and precision of polyurethane dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping method with an intraoral scanning technique

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of polyurethane (PUT) dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional (3D) subtractive rapid prototyping (RP) method with an intraoral scanning technique by comparing linear measurements obtained from PUT models and conventio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Jae-Hong, Kim, Ki-Baek, Kim, Woong-Chul, Kim, Ji-Hwan, Kim, Hae-Young
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Association of Orthodontists 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24696823
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.2.69
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of polyurethane (PUT) dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional (3D) subtractive rapid prototyping (RP) method with an intraoral scanning technique by comparing linear measurements obtained from PUT models and conventional plaster models. METHODS: Ten plaster models were duplicated using a selected standard master model and conventional impression, and 10 PUT models were duplicated using the 3D subtractive RP technique with an oral scanner. Six linear measurements were evaluated in terms of x, y, and z-axes using a non-contact white light scanner. Accuracy was assessed using mean differences between two measurements, and precision was examined using four quantitative methods and the Bland-Altman graphical method. Repeatability was evaluated in terms of intra-examiner variability, and reproducibility was assessed in terms of inter-examiner and inter-method variability. RESULTS: The mean difference between plaster models and PUT models ranged from 0.07 mm to 0.33 mm. Relative measurement errors ranged from 2.2% to 7.6% and intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.93 to 0.96, when comparing plaster models and PUT models. The Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and precision of PUT dental models for evaluating the performance of oral scanner and subtractive RP technology was acceptable. Because of the recent improvements in block material and computerized numeric control milling machines, the subtractive RP method may be a good choice for dental arch models.