Three‐Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models – Part I: System Trueness and Precision. Issue 2 (13th December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yee, Sophia Hui Xin; Esguerra, Roxanna Jean; Chew, Amelia Anya Qin'An; Wong, Keng Mun; Tan, Keson Beng Choon
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontics. Volume 27:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 129
• Page End: 136
• Publication Date: 2017-12-13
• Subjects: Coordinate measuring machine -- model scanner systems -- precision -- static articulation accuracy -- trueness; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12723
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-941X

Abstract

Abstract: 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. dRR, dRC, and dRL, represented interarch global distortions at right, central, and left sides, respectively, while dRM, dXM, dYM, and dZM 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 dRR, –199.0 to –48.1 μm for dRC, and –114.1 to –47.7 μm for dRL . Mean percentage error of interarch distortion did not exceed 0.6%. Mean interocclusal distortions ranged from 16.0 to 117.0 μm for dRM, ‐33.1 to 101.3 μm for dXM, 32.9 to 49.9 μm for dYM and –32.0 to 133.1 μm for dZM. ANOVA of trueness found statistically significant differences for dRC, dRL, dRM, dXM, and dZM . For precision values, absolute mean difference between the 10 superimposition combinations ranged from 25.3 to 91.0 μm for dRR, 21.5 to 85.5 μm for dRC, 24.8 to 70.0 μm for dRL . Absolute mean difference ranged from 49.9 to 66.1 μm for dRM, 20.7 to 92.1 μm for dXM, 86.8 to 96.0 μm for dYM, and 36.5 to 100.0 μm for dZM . ANOVA of precision of all test groups found statistically significant differences for dRR, dRC, dRL, dXM and dZM, 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.