↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations
Published in
Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2016
DOI 10.1590/1678-775720150266
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heike Rudolph, Harald Salmen, Matthias Moldan, Katharina Kuhn, Viktor Sichwardt, Bernd Wöstmann, Ralph Gunnar Luthardt

Abstract

The computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) process chain for dental restorations starts with taking an impression of the clinical situation. For this purpose, either extraoral digitization of gypsum models or intraoral digitization can be used. Despite the increasing use of dental digitizing systems, there are only few studies on their accuracy. Objective This study compared the accuracy of various intraoral and extraoral digitizing systems for dental CAD/CAM technology. Material and Methods An experimental setup for three-dimensional analysis based on 2 prepared ceramic master dies and their corresponding virtual CAD-models was used to assess the accuracy of 10 extraoral and 4 intraoral optical non-contact dental digitizing systems. Depending on the clinical procedure, 10 optical measurements of either 10 duplicate gypsum dies (extraoral digitizing) or directly of the ceramic master dies (intraoral digitizing) were made and compared with the corresponding CAD-models. Results The digitizing systems showed differences in accuracy. However, all topical systems were well within the benchmark of ±20 µm. These results apply to single tooth measurements. Conclusions Study results are limited, since only single teeth were used for comparison. The different preparations represent various angles and steep and parallel opposing tooth surfaces (incisors). For most digitizing systems, the latter are generally the most difficult to capture. Using CAD/CAM technologies, the preparation angles should not be too steep to reduce digitizing errors. Older systems might be limited to a certain height or taper of the prepared tooth, whereas newer systems (extraoral as well as intraoral digitization) do not have these limitations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 219 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 19%
Student > Postgraduate 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 72 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 48%
Engineering 12 5%
Unspecified 7 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Materials Science 2 <1%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 77 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2017.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#496
of 596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#341,814
of 399,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#14
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 596 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.