Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Accuracy of inter-arch measurements performed on digital models generated using two types of intraoral scanners: Ex vivo study

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úÀÇ»çÇùȸÁö 2020³â 58±Ç 4È£ p.194 ~ 205
À¯Á¶±¤, °­À±±¸, À̼öÁ¤, ±è¼ºÈÆ, ¹®Ã¶Çö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
À¯Á¶±¤ ( Yoo Jo-Kwang ) - Gachon University College of Medicine Gil Medical Center Department of Orthodontics
°­À±±¸ ( Kang Yoon-Koo ) - Gachon University College of Medicine Gil Medical Center Department of Orthodontics
À̼öÁ¤ ( Lee Su-Jung ) - Gachon University College of Medicine Gil Medical Center Department of Orthodontics
±è¼ºÈÆ ( Kim Seong-Hun ) - Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
¹®Ã¶Çö ( Moon Cheol-Hyun ) - Gachon University College of Medicine Gil Medical Center Department of Orthodontics

Abstract


Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the inter-arch relationship of digital models generated
using two types of intraoral scanners.

Methods: In total, 34 plaster model samples were used. Two corresponding digital models were created using two types
of intraoral scanners. A total of 15 variables were measured. The plaster model was directly measured using a digital caliper, while the digital models were measured using a software. The accuracy of the measurements was evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance and the Friedman test.

Results: Among the 15 measurements, 6 measurements[Overjet, Overbite, DZ_11-41 (Distance between the gingival zenith
of maxillary right central incisor and mandibular right central incisor), DZ_16-46 (Distance between the gingival zenith
of maxillary right first molar and mandibular right first molar), DZ_13-33 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary
right canine and mandibular left canine), and DZ_23-43 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary left canine and
mandibular right canine)]showed statistically significant differences, with DZ_23-43 showing the largest difference of 0.18
mm. The other measurements showed no statistically significant differences.

Conclusions: Regardless of the type of scanner used for preparation, digital models can be used as clinically acceptable
alternatives to conventional plaster models.

Å°¿öµå

Digital models; 3D intraoral scanner; Inter-arch measurements

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI