Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Extraoral scanner¿Í intraoral scanner¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Á¦ÀÛµÈ zirconia crownÀÇ 2Â÷¿ø º¯¿¬ ¹× ³»¸é ÀûÇÕµµ ºñ±³: in vitro

Comparison of 2-dimensional marginal and internal fitness for the monolithic zirconia prosthesis using intraoral scanner and extraoral scanner: in vitro

´ëÇÑÄ¡°ú±â°øÇÐȸÁö 2019³â 41±Ç 3È£ p.187 ~ 193
ÀÌÅÂÈñ, ÀÌÇϺó, ±èÁöȯ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌÅÂÈñ ( Lee Tae-Hee ) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø º¸°Ç°úÇаú
ÀÌÇϺó ( Lee Ha-Bin ) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø º¸°Ç°úÇаú
±èÁöȯ ( Kim Ji-Hwan ) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø º¸°Ç°úÇаú

Abstract


Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare two-dimensional fitness of the monolithic zirconia prosthesis by using different type of scanner.

Methods: No. 26 abutment tooth of FDI system was selected for the study. Using the extraoral scanner and intraoral scanner, the abutment tooth was scanned 10 times and the scanned files were saved as STL files. CAD/CAM system was used to produce the monolithic zirconia prosthesis. marginal and internal gap of the monolithic zirconia prosthesis were measured by digital microscope(x160) and applied silicone replica technique was applied. t-test, a statistical software, was used to perform data analysis.

Results: Marginal gap mean¡¾SD of the monolithic zirconia prosthesis was 33¡¾7.5§­ with extra oral scanner and 34.7¡¾11.1§­ with intraoral scanner. axial gap mean was 40.5¡¾3.5§­ with extra oral scanner and 44.6¡¾11.6§­ with intraoral scanner. occlusal gap mean was 110.1¡¾25.4§­ with extra oral scanner and 64¡¾9.7§­ with intraoral scanner.

Conclusion: In this study, fabricating zirconia prosthesis with different type of scanner was clinically applicable.

Å°¿öµå

Intraoral scanner; Extraoral scanner; Marginal fit; Internal fit

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI