Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 28:44–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DIN 13995: 2010‐02. Dentistry‐Terminology of process‐chain for CAD/CAM‐Systems. (NADENT: NA 014‐00‐05‐06 AK)

  3. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D (2008) Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 204:505–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG (2007) Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 35:903–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rubel BS (2007) Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 51:629–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:1123–1130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 22:296–302

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Endo T, Finger WJ (2006) Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material. Quintessence Int 37:47–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Christensen GJ (2008) The challenge to conventional impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 139:347–349

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:29–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

  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 72:111–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full-arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14:11–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. State of industry (2000) Lab Management Today 16:9–15

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139(6):761–763

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Christensen GJ (2005) The state of fixed prosthodontics impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 136:343–346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 14

  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 38:553–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School of the Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Goethestraße 70, 80336, Munich, Germany

    Jan-Frederik Güth, Christine Keul, Michael Stimmelmayr, Florian Beuer & Daniel Edelhoff

Authors
  1. Jan-Frederik Güth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Keul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Stimmelmayr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Florian Beuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Edelhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Frederik Güth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Güth, JF., Keul, C., Stimmelmayr, M. et al. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Invest 17, 1201–1208 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation