Issues‎ > ‎Vol 6, issue 2‎ > ‎

sdj-10095

Trueness of Stereolithographic Model Compared to Conventional Model Using CAD/CAM Prosthesis with Digital Photographs

Nabeel S. Martani*


*Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.


Submitted: 31/10/2019; Accepted: 08/12/2019; Published 29/12/2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10095

Abstract

Objective: Accuracy of the stereolithographic (SLA) model significantly influences their laboratory uses. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of SLA models created from digital impressions to conventional die stone models obtained from elastomeric impressions using full anatomic CAD/CAM fabricated fixed prosthesis.        

Methods: A partially edentulous typodont model was prepared for this study with two-implant abutments as a reference model. Two impression techniques were used to fabricate study models. Group one (n=5), SLA models were created from digital impressions acquired by an intra-oral scanner. While in group two (n=5), die stone models obtained from vinyl polysiloxane impression materials (VPS). A full anatomic zirconia bridge was fabricated using CAD/CAM system and high-resolution digital photographs from the buccal surface were captured using a macro lens . The vertical distance between selected points was measured by three evaluators using a calibrated digital software program. The t-test with 95% confidence interval was used to evaluate the accuracy of the models.

Results: There was a strong agreement among observers with a statistically significant difference in the seating of prosthesis on the SLA model versus the conventional model, with a mean and standard deviation of -0.17±0.24 mm and 1.04±0.22 mm subsequently. Their results of the t-test were showed fewer errors in the SLA group.

Conclusions: CAD/CAM fabricated bridge was better seated on SLA models from digital impressions compared with die stone models from elastomeric impressions. Therefore, the trueness of 3D printed models was greater than conventional models compared to the reference model.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Keywords: Stereolithographic model, Impression, CAD/CAM, Fixed prosthesis, Digital photograph.                                                                                                                                                                      Full Article - PDF                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

References:

1. Rubel BS. Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51(3):629–42.
2. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(6):715-9.
3. Anusavice KJ, Kenneth J. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials. 11th ed. Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2003;210-30.
4. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. 14th ed. Riverport Lane: Elsevier. 2012;252-60,
5. Raghavendra JS, Nayar S, Bhuminathan S. Review article: die materials and techniques: part II. Indian J Multidiscip Dent. 2014;4(3):975-7.
6. Herbst D, Nel JC, Driessen CH, Becker PJ. Evaluation of impression accuracy for osseointegrated implant-supported super structures. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(5):555-61.
7. Walker MP, Ries D, Borello B. Implant cast accuracy as a function of impression techniques and impression material viscosity. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(4):669-74.
8. Lee H, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Feng C. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(2):107-13.
9. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285-91.
10. Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(3):323-31.
11. Brosky ME, Pesun IJ, Lowder PD, Delong R, Hodges JS. Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(2):204-9.
12. Burns J, Palmer R, Howe L, Wilson R. Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(3):250-5.
13. Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(2):143-9.
14. Chee W, Jivraj S. Impression techniques for implant dentistry. Br Dent J. 2006;201(7):429- 32.
15. Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(2):186-92.
16. Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(5):470-6.
17. Rudd RW, Rudd K D. A review of 243 errors possible during the fabrication of a removable partial denture: part II. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(3):262-76.
18. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;30(1)14:10.
19. Van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):3-12.
20. Torabi K, Farjood E, Hamedani S. Rapid prototyping technologies and their applications in prosthodontics, A review of Literature. J Dent. 2015;16(1):1-9.
21. Azari A, Nikzad S. The evolution of rapid prototyping in dentistry: A review. Rapid Prototyp J. 2009;15(3):216-25.
22. Tan PL, Gratton DG, Diaz-Arnold AM, Holmes DC. An in vitro comparison of vertical marginal gaps of CAD/CAM titanium and conventional cast restorations. J Prosthodont. 2008;17(5):378–83.
23. Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer- aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(11):1133-40.
24. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2013;109(2):121-8.
25. White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle K S. Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod. Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137(4):1–9.
26. Zhang ZC, Li PL, Chu FT, Shen G. Influence of the three-dimensional printing technique and printing layer thickness on model accuracy. J Orofac Orthop. 2019;80(4):194– 204.
27. Mortadi AI, N, Eggbeer D, Lewis J, Williams RJ. CAD/CAM applications in the manufacture of dental appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;142(5):727-33.
28. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: An overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008;204(9):505-11.
29. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans. Conventional versus digital impressions—An in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11–21.
30. Pham DT, Ji C. Design for stereolithography. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2000;214(50:635-40.
31. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):27-38.
32. Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(4):310-5.
33. Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(6):895- 03.
34. Camardella LT, de Vasconcellos Vilella O, Breuning H. Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;151(6):1178-87.
35. Favero CS, English JD, Cozad BE, Wirthlin JO, Short MM, Kasper FK. Effect of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3- dimensional printed orthodontic models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;152:557-65.
36. Kim SY, Shin YS, Jung HD, Hwang C J, Baik H S, Cha J Y. Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3- dimensional printing techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;153(1):144-53.
37. Park ME, Shin SY. Three-dimensional comparative study on the accuracy and reproducibility of dental casts fabricated by 3D printers. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(5):e1-e861.
38. Brosky ME, Major RJ, De Long R, Hodges JS. Evaluation of dental arch reproduction using three-dimensional optical digitization. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(5):434-40.
39. Choi J-W, Ahn J-J, Son K, Huh J-B. Three- Dimensional Evaluation on Accuracy of Conventional and Milled Gypsum Models and 3D Printed Photopolymer Models. Materials. 2019;12(21):3499. 






Creative Commons License © The Authors, published by University of Sulaimani, College of Dentistry