Premium
Three‐Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models – Part I: System Trueness and Precision
Author(s) -
Yee Sophia Hui Xin,
Esguerra Roxanna Jean,
Chew Amelia Anya Qin'An,
Wong Keng Mun,
Tan Keson Beng Choon
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/jopr.12723
Subject(s) - scanner , mathematics , coordinate measuring machine , orthodontics , engineering drawing , computer science , artificial intelligence , engineering , medicine , mechanical engineering
Purpose To evaluate the 3D static articulation accuracy of 3 model scanner‐CAD systems (Ceramill Map400 [AG], inEos X5 [SIR], Scanner S600 Arti [ZKN]) using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). Trueness and precision for each system will be reported in Part I. Materials and Methods The master model simulated a single crown opposing a 3‐unit fixed dental prosthesis. Five mounted stone cast sets were prepared, and one set was randomly selected. Reference values were obtained by measuring interarch and interocclusal reference features with the CMM. The stone cast set was scanned 5 times consecutively and articulated virtually with each system (3 test groups, n = 5). STL files of the virtual models were measured with CMM software. dR R , dR C , and dR L , represented interarch global distortions at right, central, and left sides, respectively, while dR M , dX M , dY M , and dZ M represented interocclusal global and linear distortions between preparations. Results For trueness values, mean interarch global distortions ranged from 13.1 to 40.3 μm for dR R , –199.0 to –48.1 μm for dR C , and –114.1 to –47.7 μm for dR L . Mean percentage error of interarch distortion did not exceed 0.6%. Mean interocclusal distortions ranged from 16.0 to 117.0 μm for dR M , ‐33.1 to 101.3 μm for dX M , 32.9 to 49.9 μm for dY M and –32.0 to 133.1 μm for dZ M. ANOVA of trueness found statistically significant differences for dR C , dR L , dR M , dX M , and dZ M . For precision values, absolute mean difference between the 10 superimposition combinations ranged from 25.3 to 91.0 μm for dR R , 21.5 to 85.5 μm for dR C , 24.8 to 70.0 μm for dR L . Absolute mean difference ranged from 49.9 to 66.1 μm for dR M , 20.7 to 92.1 μm for dX M , 86.8 to 96.0 μm for dY M , and 36.5 to 100.0 μm for dZ M . ANOVA of precision of all test groups found statistically significant differences for dR R , dR C , dR L , dX M and dZ M , and the SIR group was the least precise. Conclusion The overall interarch global distortion of all three model scanner‐CAD systems was low and did not exceed 0.6%. Variations in scanner technology, virtual articulation algorithm, and use of physical articulators contributed to the differences in distortion observed among all three groups.