Premium
Comprehensive analysis of laserscanner validity used for measurement of wear
Author(s) -
Hsu ShuMin,
Ren Fan,
Abdulhameed Nader,
Kim Mijin,
Neal Dan,
EsquivelUpshaw Josephine
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/joor.12778
Subject(s) - profilometer , impression , volume (thermodynamics) , surface roughness , materials science , surface finish , ceramic , composite material , computer science , physics , quantum mechanics , world wide web
Summary Objectives The aims of this study were to test the hypotheses that (a) a laserscanner used for measuring maximum depth and volume loss will yield the same results as a surface profilometer; (b) the surface roughness will affect the maximum depth and volume loss measured with the laserscanner; (c) analytical results using the laserscanner from multiple operators have no more than 10% inter‐rater difference and; (d) replicating samples using either stone or impression material is an accurate method for measuring wear using the laserscanner. Materials and Methods The volume and maximum depth of indentations from fine, medium and rough burs on glass‐ceramic disks were measured using two devices, a surface profilometer (Dektak II, Veeco) and a 3D Laserscanner (LAS‐20, SD Mechatronik). Replicates of the indentations made from polyvinysiloxane impression material and gypsum were also measured. Results Comparison of profilometer and laserscanner readings using ceramic disks demonstrated a mean error of 13.61% for depth and 25.32% for volume. Replication errors were minimal (2.6% for impression, 2.5% for stone). Surface profilometer data for volume measurements revealed a difference of 6.1% for impression and 6.5% for stone compared with ceramics. However, when measurements for replicates were compared between laserscanner and surface profilometer, depth had a mean error of 74% for impression and 51% for stone. Volume differences of 78% for impression and 44% for stone were recorded. Conclusion This work demonstrated that the laserscanner was a convenient device for measuring wear but there is a need to validate the accuracy of the measurements.