Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 90, Issue 5 , Pages 434-440, November 2003

Evaluation of dental arch reproduction using three-dimensional optical digitization

This article was presented at the Hinman Student Research Symposium, Memphis, Tenn, October 25-27, 2002.

  • M.E Brosky, DMD

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Dr Mary Elizabeth Brosky, University of Minnesota, 9-450 Moos Tower, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA, Fax: 612-626-1496
  • ,
  • R.J Major, BA

      Affiliations

    • Dental student, Summer Research Fellowship Program, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn, USA
  • ,
  • R DeLong, DDS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Professor, Department of Oral Sciences. Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn, USA
  • ,
  • J.S Hodges, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Senior Research Associate, Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn, USA

Abstract 

Statement of problem

Numerous investigations have been done to determine the most accurate method to reproduce a dental arch. Investigations have used different definitive cast configurations, materials, and measuring techniques to evaluate dimensional change, leaving clinicians undecided as to the most accurate method to reproduce a dental arch.

Purpose of study

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of impression tray selection on accuracy of reproductions of a dental arch using a 3-dimensional optical digitizer.

Materials and methods

Impressions were made of a stone cast of a dental arch using vinyl polysiloxane impression material in custom and stock impression trays (n=12). Custom trays, designed with full palatal coverage, were fabricated on a separate standard stone cast using 2 layers of pink baseplate wax as the spacer and tissue stops on 1 anterior tooth and both first molar teeth. Impressions were poured with type IV gypsum and allowed to set with the tray inverted (n=5) or not inverted (n=5). The standard cast and resulting casts were digitized using an optical digitizer. Custom software was used to align and process the 3-dimensional images created by the digitizer. Each image was superimposed onto the standard cast image, curves were created of the percent of points less than a defined distance between the 2 superimposed images, and the area under the curve was calculated. A weighted average area was calculated for each cast, and these values were analyzed using a 2-way ANOVA (α=.05).

Results

The main effect of tray type, laboratory setting technique, and the interaction between these 2 characteristics was analyzed. None of these effects was significant.

Conclusion

The differences in accuracy of reproductions of a dental arch, regardless of the impression and laboratory techniques, were not significant when evaluated using a 3-dimensional optical digitizer.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Research for this article was supported in part by The University of Minnesota School of Dentistry Summer Research Fellowship Program NIH/5T35-DE07098-19, 2R44DE11638 and NIH/NIDCR Grant P30-DE12225 and The Minnesota Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics.

PII: S0022-3913(03)00592-4

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.021

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 90, Issue 5 , Pages 434-440, November 2003