scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Comparison of the occlusal contact area of virtual models and actual models: a comparative in vitro study on Class I and Class II malocclusion models

Hyemin Lee, +3 more
- 19 Jun 2018 - 
- Vol. 18, Iss: 1, pp 109-109
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Difference between the actual and virtual occlusion revealed in the anterior portion, where overestimation was observed in the virtual model obtained from the scanning method.
Abstract
The occlusal registration of virtual models taken by intraoral scanners sometimes shows patterns which seem much different from the patients’ occlusion. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the accuracy of virtual occlusion by comparing virtual occlusal contact area with actual occlusal contact area using a plaster model in vitro. Plaster dental models, 24 sets of Class I models and 20 sets of Class II models, were divided into a Molar, Premolar, and Anterior group. The occlusal contact areas calculated by the Prescale method and the virtual occlusion by scanning method were compared, and the ratio of the molar and incisor area were compared in order to find any particular tendencies. There was no significant difference between the Prescale results and the scanner results in both the molar and premolar groups (p = 0.083 and 0.053, respectively). On the other hand, there was a significant difference between the Prescale and the scanner results in the anterior group with the scanner results presenting overestimation of the occlusal contact points (p < 0.05). In Molars group, the regression analysis shows that the two variables express linear correlation and has a linear equation with a slope of 0.917. R2 is 0.930. Groups of Premolars and Anteriors had a week linear relationship and greater dispersion. Difference between the actual and virtual occlusion revealed in the anterior portion, where overestimation was observed in the virtual model obtained from the scanning method. Nevertheless, molar and premolar areas showed relatively accurate occlusal contact area in the virtual model.

read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study

TL;DR: This in vitro study assesses the accuracy of 5 different IOSs in the impressions of single and multiple implants, and finds a significant difference in trueness was found between the contexts.
Journal ArticleDOI

The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

TL;DR: This in vitro study analyzes the face scans obtained from four scanners to identify the appropriate scanner for face scanning and shows EP showed medium accuracy and some lesser accuracy, but IPX and PM showed the least accuracy.
Journal ArticleDOI

Reliability and Validity of T-scan and 3D Intraoral Scanning for Measuring the Occlusal Contact Area.

TL;DR: T-scan is a reliable method for measuring the OCA, but the 3D surface scan is not, and occlusal registration showed a high validity.

A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners

TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared the precision of 3D images acquired using iTero ® and Trios ® digital intraoral scanners, and evaluated the effects of the severity of tooth irregularities and scanning sequence on precision.
Journal ArticleDOI

The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry.

TL;DR: The accuracy of digital scans with IOSs was comparable to the conventional impression techniques for single or partial prostheses, and the digital scans are time efficient when taking impressions for single- or double-abutments, but the accuracy and time efficiency are decreased for multiple implant scans or large-area scans withIOSs use.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.

TL;DR: The new reference scanner is capable of measuring the precision and trueness of both digital and conventional complete-arch impressions, and the digital impression is less accurate and shows a different pattern of deviation than the conventional impression.
Journal ArticleDOI

Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner

TL;DR: Intraoral and extraoral scanning with the iTero resulted in deviations at the facial surfaces of the anterior teeth and the buccal molar surfaces, suggesting that the intraoral conditions (saliva, limited spacing) contribute to the inaccuracy of a scan.
Journal ArticleDOI

Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners

TL;DR: The results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans.
Journal ArticleDOI

Influence of Clenching Intensity on Bite Force Balance, Occlusal Contact Area, and Average Bite Pressure

TL;DR: The results in normal subjects suggest that as the clenching intensity increases in the intercuspal position, the bite force adjusts to a position where it is well-balanced, which may prevent damage and overload to the teeth and temporomandibular joints.
Journal ArticleDOI

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.

TL;DR: Significant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher than those obtained in the BEM.
Related Papers (5)