Comprehensive analysis of laserscanner validity used for measurement of wear. (14th March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hsu, Shu‐Min; Ren, Fan; Abdulhameed, Nader; Kim, Mijin; Neal, Dan; Esquivel‐Upshaw, Josephine
• Is Part Of: Journal of oral rehabilitation. Volume 46:Number 6(2019:Jun.)
• Page Start: 503
• Page End: 510
• Publication Date: 2019-03-14
• Subjects: dental ceramics -- erosion testing -- profilometry -- wear testing; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; 617
• DOI: 10.1111/joor.12778
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-182X

Abstract

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.