Article Sidebar

pdf
Date Published: 14/10/2024
Abstract Views: 50
Views pdf: 55
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v543i1.11336
Issue
Vol. 543 No. 1 (2024)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Huỳnh, C. N. N., Trần, C. N., & Kiều, Q. T. (2024). INFLUENCE OF POSITION ON THE ACCURACY OF DIGITAL IMPRESSIONS OF CORE BUILDUP RECONSTRUCTED WITH DIFFERENT TRANSLUCENCY COMPOSITES. Vietnam Medical Journal, 543(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v543i1.11336

INFLUENCE OF POSITION ON THE ACCURACY OF DIGITAL IMPRESSIONS OF CORE BUILDUP RECONSTRUCTED WITH DIFFERENT TRANSLUCENCY COMPOSITES

Công Nhật Nam Huỳnh, Chí Nguyên Trần, Quốc Thoại Kiều

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluates the influence of translucency and position of dental core buildup reconstructed with composite resin on the trueness of digital impression. Method: The invitro study was performed on 3D printed core No.21, reconstructed with 4 types of composites with different translucencies (AE, A3, AO3, EX). Core buildup samples were scanned using a Medit i700 intraoral scanner and compared to a reference scan from a Solutionix C500 industrial scanner. Then the 3D images were performed superimposition and compared to the reference image at 3 locations corresponding to 3 different thicknesses of the composite (insisal, middle, cervical). Results: The accuracy of IOS scan data was influenced by the translucency of the composite material with an average variation of 10-30µm. The thinner the position (insisal), the higher the composite translucency and the lower the accuracy of the scanning data. Among them, composite AE and A3 got the lowest trueness. Conclusion: The translucency of the composite affects the accuracy of the optical impression, causing the risk of reducing the fit of the CAD/CAM restoration. Use of AO3 and EX composites is recommended to ensure scan data accuracy in any location.

Article Details

Keywords

Accuracy, composite resin, digital dentistry, intraoral scanners, CAD/CAM

References

Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy in dental medicine, a new way to measure trueness and precision. J Vis Exp. Apr 29 2014;(86)doi:10.3791/51374
2. Dutton E, Ludlow M, Mennito A, et al. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. J Esthet Restor Dent. Mar 2020;32(2):204-218. doi:10.1111/jerd.12528
3. Kurz M, Attin T, Mehl A. Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system. Clinical oral investigations. Nov 2015; 19(8):2035-43. doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1440-5
4. Nguyen ND, Tran NC, Tran TT, et al. Effects of core buildup composite resin translucency on intraoral scanner accuracy: an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. Sep 26 2023;26(3):201-210. doi:10.3290/j.ijcd.b3774253
5. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of Accuracy of Current Ten Intraoral Scanners. BioMed research international. 2021;2021:2673040. doi:10.1155/2021/2673040
6. Diker B, Tak O. Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence. J Adv Prosthodont. Oct 2020;12(5):299-306. doi:10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.299
7. Vafaee F, Firouz F, Mohajeri M, Hashemi R, Ghorbani Gholiabad S. In vitro Comparison of the Accuracy (Precision and Trueness) of Seven Dental Scanners. J Dent (Shiraz). Mar 2021; 22(1): 8-13. doi:10.30476/ DENTJODS.2020.83485.1047
8. Denissen H, Dozic A, van der Zel J, van Waas M. Marginal fit and short-term clinical performance of porcelain-veneered CICERO, CEREC, and Procera onlays. J Prosthet Dent. Nov 2000; 84(5):506-13. doi:10.1067/ mpr.2000.110258