Einfluss der Scanstrategie auf die Genauigkeit digitaler Ganzkieferabformungen

Zusammenfassung

Bei der digitalen intraoralen Abformung stellt sich die Frage nach der optimalen Scanstrategie zur Erzeugung eines genauen virtuellen Abbildes der klinischen Situation. Während bei der indirekten Digitalisierung im zahntechnischen Labor der Digitalisierungsablauf fest durch die Software des Scansystems vorgegeben ist, entscheidet bei der direkten Digitalisierung trotz Herstellerempfehlungen der Behandler am Behandlungsstuhl selbst über den Scanpfad. Während manche Behandler lieber lineare Scanbewegungen durchführen, bevorzugen andere beispielsweise eher s-förmige Bewegungen. Doch haben diese unterschiedlichen Scanbewegungen einen relevanten Einfluss auf das Scanergebnis?

Abstract

In terms of intraoral digital impressions, the question arises about the optimal scanning strategy to generate a highly precise virtual image of the clinical situation. While the digitalization process in the dental laboratory is determined by the software of the laboratory model scanner, for the intraoral direct digitization the operator decides on the scan path. Some practitioners prefer linear scanning, others prefer more s-shaped scanning strategies. But will these different scanning strategies have a relevant influence on the accuracy of the scanning result?

Schlüsselwörter

konventionelle Abformung - CAD/CAM - Intraoralscanner - Scanpfad

Key words

conventional impression - CAD/CAM - digital impression - scanning strategy

• Literatur

• 1 Tinschert J, Natt G, Hassenpflug S. et al. Status of current CAD/CAM technology in dental medicine. Int J Comput Dent 2004; 7: 25-45
• 2 Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S. et al. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18: 1687-1694 doi:10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y
• 3 Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Brit Dent J 2008; 204: 505-511
• 4 Bosch G, Ender A, Mehl A. A 3-dimensional accuracy analysis of chairside CAD/CAM milling processes. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 1425-1431 doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.012
• 5 Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109: 121-128
• 6 Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 2007; 35: 903-908
• 7 Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M. et al. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 1201-1208
• 8 Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ. et al. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization–a laboratory study. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 400-407
• 9 Christensen GJ. The challenge to conventional impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 347-349
• 10 Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions?. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 761-763
• 11 Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG. et al. Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 2010; 20: 243-249
• 12 Al-Bakri IA, Hussey D, Al-Omari WM. The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials. J Clin Dent 2007; 18: 29-33
• 13 Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W. et al. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009; 12: 11-28
• 14 Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P. et al. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 2027-2034 doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7
• 15 Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions–an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011; 14: 11-21
• 16 Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K. et al. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 471-478
• 17 Guth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J. et al. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 1487-1494 doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1626-x
• 18 Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013; 16: 11-21
• 19 Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS. et al. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod 2016; 46: 3-12
• 20 Guth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J. et al. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 1487-1494
• 21 Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T. et al. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 20: 1495-1504 doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y
• 22 Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015; 46: 9-17
• 23 Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115: 313-320
• 24 Kurz M, Attin T, Mehl A. Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 2035-2043 doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1440-5
• 25 de Araujo GM, de Franca DG, Silva Neto JP. et al. Passivity of conventional and CAD/CAM fabricated implant frameworks. Brazil Dent J 2015; 26: 277-283
• 26 Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 2001; 10: 85-92
• 27 Taylor TD. Prosthodontic problems and limitations associated with osseointegration. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 74-78
• 28 Karl M, Taylor TD. Bone adaptation induced by non-passively fitting implant superstructures: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31: 369-375
• 29 Taylor TD, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15: 66-75
• 30 McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Brit Dent J 1971; 131: 107-111