Accuracy of printed models obtained from intraoral scanning

F. Igai, W. Júnior, P. Neto
{"title":"Accuracy of printed models obtained from intraoral scanning","authors":"F. Igai, W. Júnior, P. Neto","doi":"10.11606/issn.2357-8041.clrd.2021.182995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To compare the accuracy of two methods for the manufacturing of physical models: I) intraoral scanning and resin-printed models; and II) addition silicone impression and gypsum model. Materials and methods: A dental manikin was used as the master model and compared with five gypsum models (g1) and five resin printed models (g2) by analyzing linear measurements at four sites (M1, M2, M3, and M4) using an image measuring instrument. The mean values of the experimental models were compared to those of the master model using one-sample t-test. The samples of each group at the same site were compared with an independent t-test. For all tests, a significance level of 5% (0.05) was considered. Results: The confidence intervals from M1, M2, and M4 sites for both gypsum and resin models presented statistically lower linear distance when compared to the reference values. At m3, the mean value for the gypsum models was not statistically different from the reference mean value (p > 0.05); however, resin-printed models presented a statistically different mean value (p < 0.05), as well as lower values of linear distance. Conclusions: When compared to gypsum models, resin- printed models differed greatly from the master model, indicating the need for standardizing the printing protocol, for its variables may influence printed models accuracy.","PeriodicalId":10204,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Laboratorial Research in Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Laboratorial Research in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2357-8041.clrd.2021.182995","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the accuracy of two methods for the manufacturing of physical models: I) intraoral scanning and resin-printed models; and II) addition silicone impression and gypsum model. Materials and methods: A dental manikin was used as the master model and compared with five gypsum models (g1) and five resin printed models (g2) by analyzing linear measurements at four sites (M1, M2, M3, and M4) using an image measuring instrument. The mean values of the experimental models were compared to those of the master model using one-sample t-test. The samples of each group at the same site were compared with an independent t-test. For all tests, a significance level of 5% (0.05) was considered. Results: The confidence intervals from M1, M2, and M4 sites for both gypsum and resin models presented statistically lower linear distance when compared to the reference values. At m3, the mean value for the gypsum models was not statistically different from the reference mean value (p > 0.05); however, resin-printed models presented a statistically different mean value (p < 0.05), as well as lower values of linear distance. Conclusions: When compared to gypsum models, resin- printed models differed greatly from the master model, indicating the need for standardizing the printing protocol, for its variables may influence printed models accuracy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
口腔内扫描获得的打印模型的准确性
目的:比较两种制作物理模型的方法的准确性:1)口腔内扫描和树脂打印模型;和II)添加硅胶模和石膏模型。材料与方法:以口腔假人为主模型,利用图像测量仪对M1、M2、M3、M4 4个部位进行线性测量,与5个石膏模型(g1)和5个树脂打印模型(g2)进行对比。采用单样本t检验将实验模型的均值与主模型的均值进行比较。同一地点各组样本的比较采用独立t检验。所有检验均考虑显著性水平为5%(0.05)。结果:与参考值相比,石膏和树脂模型的M1、M2和M4位点的置信区间在统计学上呈现较低的线性距离。在m3处,石膏模型的平均值与参考平均值无统计学差异(p > 0.05);然而,树脂打印模型的平均值有统计学差异(p < 0.05),线性距离值更低。结论:与石膏模型相比,树脂打印模型与主模型差异较大,打印方案需要标准化,因为其变量可能会影响打印模型的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Recorrências locais de tumores de glândulas salivares em uma população brasileira Utilização da distração óssea no tratamento de pacientes com Sequência de Pierre Robin Relação entre alterações ósseas detectadas na panorâmica e osteoporose Comparison of the accuracy of linear measurements in CBCT images with different field of views Antimicrobial photodynamic and photobiomodulation adjuvant therapies for medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw – Report of two cases with long-term follow-up
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1