Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

»ó¾Ç ÀüÄ¡ÀÇ Ä¡¿­ ÇüÅ¿¡ µû¸¥ ½ºÄµ ¹Ýº¹ ÃøÁ¤ ¾ÈÁ¤¼º Æò°¡: in vitro ¿¬±¸

Evaluation of repeated measurement stability of dentition type of maxillary anterior tooth: an in vitro study

´ëÇÑÄ¡°ú±â°øÇÐȸÁö 2019³â 41±Ç 3È£ p.211 ~ 217
¹Úµ¿ÀÎ, ¼ÕÈ£Á¤, ±è¿õö, ±èÁöȯ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹Úµ¿ÀΠ( Park Dong-In ) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø º¸°Ç°úÇаú
¼ÕÈ£Á¤ ( Son Ho-Jung ) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø º¸°Ç°úÇаú
±è¿õö ( Kim Woong-Chul ) - °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 is to evaluate the repeated measurement stability of scans related to dentition type.

Methods: A normal model and the crowding and diastema models are also duplicated using duplicating silicon. After that, a plaster model is made using a plaster-type plaster on the duplicate mold, and each model is scanned 5 times by using an extraoral scanner. The gingival part and molar part were deleted from the 3D STL file data obtained through scanning. Using the 3D stl file obtained in this way, data is nested between model groups. Thereafter, RMS values obtained were compared and evaluated. The normality test of the data was performed for the statistical application of repeated measurements with dentition type, and the normality was satisfied. Therefore, the one-way ANOVA test, which is a parametric statistical method, was applied, and post-tests were processed by the Scheffe method.

Results: The average size of each RMS in the Normal, Diastema, and Crowding groups was Normal> Crowding> Diastema. However, the standard deviation was in the order of Crowding> Normal> Diastema. The average value of each data is as follows. Diastema model was the smallest (5.51 ¡¾ 0.55 ¥ìm), followed by the crowding model (12.30 ¡¾ 2.50 ¥ìm). The normal model showed the maximum error (13.23 ¡¾ 1.06¥ìm).

Conclusion: There was a statistically significant difference in the repeatability of the scanning measurements according to the dentition type. Therefore, you should be more careful when scanning the normal intense or crowded dentition than scanning the interdental lining. However, this error value was within the range of applicable errors for all clinical cases.

Å°¿öµå

Scanning repeatability; Digitalize; Maxillary arch; Abnormal dentition

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI