| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3160640 | Journal of Prosthodontic Research | 2016 | 8 Pages |
PurposeThe precision of two types of surface digitization devices, i.e., a contact probe scanner and an optical scanner, and the trueness of two types of stone replicas, i.e., one without an imaging powder (SR/NP) and one with an imaging powder (SR/P), were evaluated using a computer-aided analysis.MethodsA master die was fabricated from stainless steel. Ten impressions were taken, and ten stone replicas were prepared from Type IV stone (Fujirock EP, GC, Leuven, Belgium). The precision of two types of scanners was analyzed using the root mean square (RMS), measurement error (ME), and limits of agreement (LoA) at each coordinate. The trueness of the stone replicas was evaluated using the total deviation. A Student's t-test was applied to compare the discrepancies between the CAD-reference-models of the master die (m-CRM) and point clouds for the two types of stone replicas (α = .05).ResultsThe RMS values for the precision were 1.58, 1.28, and 0.98 μm along the x-, y-, and z-axes in the contact probe scanner and 1.97, 1.32, and 1.33 μm along the x-, y-, and z-axes in the optical scanner, respectively. A comparison with m-CRM revealed a trueness of 7.10 μm for SR/NP and 8.65 μm for SR/P.ConclusionsThe precision at each coordinate (x-, y-, and z-axes) was revealed to be higher than the one assessed in the previous method (overall offset differences). A comparison between the m-CRM and 3D surface models of the stone replicas revealed a greater dimensional change in SR/P than in SR/NP.
