Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 1201–1208 | Cite as

Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing

  • Jan-Frederik GüthEmail author
  • Christine Keul
  • Michael Stimmelmayr
  • Florian Beuer
  • Daniel Edelhoff
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

With direct and indirect digitalisation, two access points to CAD/CAM-generated restorations are available. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the single steps of both approaches by comparing construction datasets using a new methodology.

Material and method

Twelve test datasets were generated in vitro (1) with the Lava Chairside Oral Scanner (COS) (2) by digitizing polyether impressions (IMP) and (3) by scanning the referring gypsum cast by the Lava Scan ST laboratory scanner (ST) at a time. Using an inspection software, these datasets were superimposed by a best fit algorithm with the reference dataset (REF), gained from industrial computed tomography, and divergences were analysed.

Results

On the basis of average positive and negative deviations between test- and REF datasets, it could be shown that direct digitalisation accomplished the most accurate results (COS, 17 μm/−13 μm; SD ± 19 μm), followed by digitized polyether impression (IMP, 23 μm/−22 μm; SD ± 31 μm) and indirect digitalisation (ST, 36 μm/−35 μm; SD ± 52 μm). The mean absolute values of Euclidean distances showed the least values for COS (15 μm; SD ± 6 μm), followed by IMP (23 μm; SD ± 9 μm) and ST (36 μm; SD ± 7 μm). The mean negative and mean absolute values of all groups were significantly different. Comparing the mean positive values of the groups, IMP and COS (p = 0.082) showed no significant difference, whereas ST and COS, and ST and IMP exhibited statistically significant differences.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the direct digitalisation with Lava C.O.S. showed statistically significantly higher accuracy compared to the conventional procedure of impression taking and indirect digitalisation.

Clinical relevance

Within the limitations of this study, the method of direct digitalisation seems to have the potential to improve the accuracy of impressions for four-unit FDPs.

Keywords

Intraoral scanner Accuracy Indirect data capturing Direct data capturing Matching STL 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors like to thank Mr. Michael Krumm from Development Center X-ray Technology EZRT of Fraunhofer IIS in Fürth for conducting the CT measurements, postprocessing and the support during this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y (2009) A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 28:44–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DIN 13995: 2010‐02. Dentistry‐Terminology of process‐chain for CAD/CAM‐Systems. (NADENT: NA 014‐00‐05‐06 AK)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D (2008) Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 204:505–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG (2007) Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 35:903–908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rubel BS (2007) Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 51:629–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Persson AS, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G (2008) Computer aided analysis of digitized dental stone replicas by dental CAD/CAM technology. Dent Mater 24:1123–1130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haim M, Luthardt RG, Rudolph H, Koch R, Walter MH, Quaas S (2009) Randomized controlled clinical study on the accuracy of two-stage putty-and-wash impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 22:296–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Endo T, Finger WJ (2006) Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material. Quintessence Int 37:47–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christensen GJ (2008) The challenge to conventional impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 139:347–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Bakri IA, Hussey D, Al-Omari WM (2007) The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials. J Clin Dent 18:29–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DIN ISO 5725‐1: 1997‐11. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results‐Part 1: General prinicples and definitions (ISO 5725‐1:1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steinhäuser-Andresen S, Detterbeck A, Funk C, Krumm M, Kasperl S, Holst A, Hirschfelder U (2011) Pilot study on accuracy and dimensional stability of impression materials using industrial CT technology. J Orofac Orthop 72:111–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full-arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14:11–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    State of industry (2000) Lab Management Today 16:9–15Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139(6):761–763PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Christensen GJ (2005) The state of fixed prosthodontics impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 136:343–346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Güth JF, Keul C, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2011) Untersuchung zur Reproduzierbarkeit und Genauigkeit der 3D-Ausrichtung zum Vergleich von STL-Datensätzen. Oral presentation #33. DGPro-Jahrestagung, Hamburg, May 14Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38:553–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan-Frederik Güth
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christine Keul
    • 1
  • Michael Stimmelmayr
    • 1
  • Florian Beuer
    • 1
  • Daniel Edelhoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ProsthodonticsDental School of the Ludwig-Maximilians University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations