IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Emi Kamimura
  • Shinpei Tanaka
  • Masayuki Takaba
  • Keita Tachi
  • Kazuyoshi Baba

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the inter-operator reproducibility of three-dimensional (3D) images of teeth captured by a digital impression technique to a conventional impression technique in vivo. Materials and methods: Twelve participants with complete natural dentition were included in this study. A digital impression of the mandibular molars of these participants was made by two operators with different levels of clinical experience, 3 or 16 years, using an intra-oral scanner (Lava COS, 3M ESPE). A silicone impression also was made by the same operators using the double mix impression technique (Imprint3, 3M ESPE). Stereolithography (STL) data were directly exported from the Lava COS system, while STL data of a plaster model made from silicone impression were captured by a three-dimensional (3D) laboratory scanner (D810, 3shape). The STL datasets recorded by two different operators were compared using 3D evaluation software and superimposed using the best-fit-algorithm method (least-squares method, PolyWorks, InnovMetric Software) for each impression technique. Inter-operator reproducibility as evaluated by average discrepancies of corresponding 3D data was compared between the two techniques (Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Results: The visual inspection of superimposed datasets revealed that discrepancies between repeated digital impression were smaller than observed with silicone impression. Confirmation was forthcoming from statistical analysis revealing significantly smaller average inter-operator reproducibility using a digital impression technique (0.014± 0.02 mm) than when using a conventional impression technique (0.023 ± 0.01 mm). Conclusion: The results of this in vivo study suggest that inter-operator reproducibility with a digital impression technique may be better than that of a conventional impression technique and is independent of the clinical experience of the operator.

Suggested Citation

  • Emi Kamimura & Shinpei Tanaka & Masayuki Takaba & Keita Tachi & Kazuyoshi Baba, 2017. "In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-12, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179188
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179188
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179188&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179188?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.