Search

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of automatic tooth finish line registration compared to manual registration with regard to various finish line configurations and dental computer-aided design (CAD) software. Methods: Finish line registrations were performed on 15 digital tooth models with different finish line configurations (edge roundness radius = 0 mm, 0.2 mm, and 0.4 mm; edge angle = 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, and 150°) using automatic and manual methods for designing virtual copings (N = 150). The discrepancies between the registered finish line extracted from the copings and the actual finish line segmented from the digitized tooth model were measured. Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05) were used to analyze the results. Results: The finish line configurations, registration methods, and CAD software interacted with the accuracy of the registered finish line (p = 0.001). The automatic finish line registration method exhibited larger error values than the manual method, especially at high finish line edge roundness and obtuse edge angles for both EXOCAD and R2CAD software (p < 0.001). The difference in dental CAD software affected the registration accuracy in the automatic method (p < 0.001), but not in the manual method (p = 0.676). Conclusions: Finish line registration errors may occur when the automatic registration method is applied to the indistinct edge of tooth preparation. The accuracy of the automatic finish line registration could differ according to the CAD software program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the precision of three-dimensional (3D) images acquired using iTero® (Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) and Trios® (3Shape Dental Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark) digital intraoral scanners, and to evaluate the effects of the severity of tooth irregularities and scanning sequence on precision. Methods: Dental arch models were fabricated with differing degrees of tooth irregularity and divided into 2 groups based on scanning sequence. To assess their precision, images were superimposed and an optimized superimposition algorithm was employed to measure any 3D deviation. The f-test, paired f-test, and one-way AIN OVA were performed (p < 0.05) for statistical analysis. Results: The iTero® and Trios® systems showed no statistically significant difference in precision among models with differing degrees of tooth irregularity. However, there were statistically significant differences in the precision of the 2 scanners when the starting points of scanning were different. The iTero® scanner (mean deviation, 29.84 ± 12.08 µm) proved to be less precise than the Trios® scanner (22.17 ± 4.47 jim). Conclusions: The precision of 3D images differed according to the degree of tooth irregularity, scanning sequence, and scanner type. However, from a clinical standpoint, both scanners were highly accurate regardless of the degree of tooth irregularity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The success of autogenous tooth transplantation depends on the vitality of the periodontal ligament attached to the donor tooth, and its viability decreases when it is exposed extraorally. This report describes the case of a 16-year-old patient in whom a rapid prototyped tooth model was performed using cone-beam technology and a surgical template guide for autotransplantation as an effective technique for a critical time-based procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]