SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3s

Direct Digitalization Devices in Today’s Dental Practice: Lab Scanners

Çağrı URAL
Necati KALELİ
Pages
143–147
Publication Date
2021-05-09
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Every system has different advantages and disadvantages, and the clinicians or dental technicians should know the technology and different features of these devices to choose the optimal device for their workflow.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Every day, modern dentistry faces with new technologies, which have begun to be used in daily clinical practice, and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing has brought new technologies and opportunities to all fields of dentistry.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The first step is acquiring the true data, which belongs to the patients, digitalization of intraoral structures.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Every system has different advantages and disadvantages, and the clinicians or dental technicians should know the technology and different features of these devices to choose the optimal device for their workflow.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Digital Dentistry · Extraoral · Scanners

Abstract

Every day, modern dentistry faces with new technologies, which have begun to be used in daily clinical practice, and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing has brought new technologies and opportunities to all fields of dentistry. The first step is acquiring the true data, which belongs to the patients, digitalization of intraoral structures. By acquiring these data, the restorations can be designed and fabricated by using digital workflow. Dentists have two main options for capturing the data from the related surfaces; one is the direct digitalization and the other one is the indirect digitalization process. In the indirect process, extraoral scanners, which are called lab scanners or cast scanners, are used. Every system has different advantages and disadvantages, and the clinicians or dental technicians should know the technology and different features of these devices to choose the optimal device for their workflow.

🔖

Cite This Article

URAL, Ç., KALELİ, N. (2021). Direct Digitalization Devices in Today’s Dental Practice: Lab Scanners. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3s, 143–147. https://ajindex.com/articles/677938

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Al-Fadda, S.A., Zarb, G.A., Finer, Y., 2007. A comparison of the accuracy of fit of 2 methods for fabricating implant-prosthodontic frameworks. Int. J. Prosthodont. 20, 125-131.
  2. Arnetzl, G., Pongratz, D., 2005. Milling precision and fitting accuracy of Cerec Scan milled restorations. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 8, 273-281.
  3. Chan, D., Chung, A.H., Haines, J., Yau, E.T., Kuo, C., 2011. The accuracy of optical scanning: influence of convergence and die preparation. Oper. Dent. 36, 486-491.
  4. De Villaumbrosia, P.G., Martínez-Rus, F., García-Orejas, A., Salido, M.P., Pradíes, G., 2016. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J. Prosthet. Dent 116, 543-550. e541. Del Corso, M., Aba, G., Vazquez, L., Dargaud, J., Ehrenfest, D.M.D., 2009. Optical three‐dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 11, 214-221.
  5. Delong, R., Heinzen, M., Hodges, J.S., Ko, C.C., Douglas, W., 2003. Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J. Dent. Res. 82, 438-442.
  6. Ebert, J., Özkol, E., Zeichner, A., Uibel, K., Weiss, Ö., Koops, U., Telle, R., Fischer, H., 2009. Direct inkjet printing of dental prostheses made of zirconia. J. Dent. Res. 88, 673-676.
  7. Fielding, G.A., Bandyopadhyay, A., Bose, S., 2012. Effects of silica and zinc oxide doping on mechanical and biological properties of 3D printed tricalcium phosphate tissue engineering scaffolds. Dent. Mater. 28, 113-122.
  8. Jeon, J.H., Choi, B.Y., Kim, C.M., Kim, J.H., Kim, H.Y., Kim, W.C., 2015. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white-and blue-light scanners. J. Prosthet. Dent. 114, 549-553.
  9. Jeon, J.H., Lee, K.T., Kim, H.Y., Kim, J.H., Kim, W.C., 2013. White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 5, 452-456. Joós-Kovács, G., Vecsei, B., Körmendi, S., Gyarmathy, V., Borbély, J., Hermann, P., 2019. Trueness of CAD/CAM digitization with a desktop scanner–an in vitro study. BMC. Oral. Health. 19, 280. Kachalia, P.R., Geissberger, M.J., 2010. Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD/CAM technology. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 38, 323-330.
  10. Lee, J.J., Jeong, I.D., Park, J.Y., Jeon, J.H., Kim, J.H., Kim, W.C., 2017. Accuracy of single-abu