ORCID Profile
0000-0002-7547-5815
Current Organisation
University of Western Australia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2014
DOI: 10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2014.05.027
Abstract: Intraoral scanners may use proprietary acquisition and manufacturing processes. However, limited information is available regarding their accuracy, their precision, and the influence that refraction or coating may have on their output. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and precision of 4 intraoral scanners and to assess the influence of different test materials and coating thicknesses. Models were fabricated in 3 materials (polymethyl methacrylate [Telio CAD], titanium, and zirconia) and reference scanned with an industrial optical scanner. The models were scanned with intraoral scanners (3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, E4D, and iTero). A thick layer of coating was applied and scanned (3M Lava COS). Further evaluation on a gypsum cast was undertaken for the E4D system. Data were evaluated by using 3-dimensional analysis with "3D compare" software commands (3D compare analysis) regarding standard, mean, and maximum deviations, with subsequent statistical analysis. The 3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, and iTero generally displayed similar results regarding deviations. Maximum deviations, however, increased by several factors for the noncoating scanners (iTero and E4D). Statistical significance was found regarding material properties for noncoating scanners (P<.05). iTero displayed consistent material-specific, localized errors on the translucent material (Telio CAD). E4D showed the largest deviations. Scans of the gypsum cast displayed specific localized areas with greater deviations. Excessive coating was nonsignificant. Significant differences were found between the coating and noncoating scanners, and specific scanning errors for the system with parallel confocal microscopy were found for certain model materials. Specific areas of sizable deviations for the system with laser triangulation technology can be explained by the scanner design and noncoating technology. Excessive coating had no negative effect.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2023
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 23-02-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.JDENT.2017.12.006
Abstract: To evaluate a novel methodology using industrial scanners as a reference, and assess in vivo accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners (IOS) and conventional impressions. Further, to evaluate IOS precision in vivo. Four reference-bodies were bonded to the buccal surfaces of upper premolars and incisors in five subjects. After three reference-scans, ATOS Core 80 (ATOS), subjects were scanned three times with three IOS systems: 3M True Definition (3M), CEREC Omnicam (OMNI) and Trios 3 (TRIOS). One conventional impression (IMPR) was taken, 3M Impregum Penta Soft, and poured models were digitized with laboratory scanner 3shape D1000 (D1000). Best-fit alignment of reference-bodies and 3D Compare Analysis was performed. Precision of ATOS and D1000 was assessed for quantitative evaluation and comparison. Accuracy of IOS and IMPR were analyzed using ATOS as reference. Precision of IOS was evaluated through intra-system comparison. Precision of ATOS reference scanner (mean 0.6 μm) and D1000 (mean 0.5 μm) was high. Pairwise multiple comparisons of reference-bodies located in different tooth positions displayed a statistically significant difference of accuracy between two scanner-groups: 3M and TRIOS, over OMNI (p value range 0.0001 to 0.0006). IMPR did not show any statistically significant difference to IOS. However, deviations of IOS and IMPR were within a similar magnitude. No statistical difference was found for IOS precision. The methodology can be used for assessing accuracy of IOS and IMPR in vivo in up to five units bilaterally from midline. 3M and TRIOS had a higher accuracy than OMNI. IMPR overlapped both groups. Intraoral scanners can be used as a replacement for conventional impressions when restoring up to ten units without extended edentulous spans.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 30-08-2021
DOI: 10.1111/CLR.13833
Abstract: To report three‐dimensional (3‐D) movement of teeth adjacent to single‐implant crowns (SICs) in the anterior maxilla and to relate the findings to patient characteristics and esthetic outcome. 3‐D movements of teeth adjacent to anterior maxillary SICs were measured in 30 patients with original SICs in function after 14–20 years. The movements were related to facial type, lower anterior facial height (LAFH), age at crown delivery, sex, the position of the implant, implant occlusion, cause of tooth loss, follow‐up period, orthodontic treatment prior to implant placement, and marginal bone‐level changes. The esthetic outcome and quality were assessed using Visual Analog scale (VAS) and California Dental Association (CDA) index. 3‐D movement of adjacent teeth between 0 and 2.5 mm was observed at follow‐up with incisal and palatal movement being most pronounced. Incisal tooth movement of mm was observed in 30% of the patients and was significantly associated with LAFH ≥70 mm. VAS rating associated poorly between patients and clinicians with scores of % in 63% and 20%, respectively. The CDA rating was assessed as satisfactory in 87% of the patients. Significantly more extensive infraposition was observed in patients with SICs without occlusion, other causes of tooth loss than trauma, implant in lateral incisor and canine position, and a LAFH of ≥70 mm. Although infraposition occurs, patients are highly satisfied with the esthetics of their implants and the esthetic results are valued as higher by patients than dentists.
No related grants have been discovered for Robert Nedelcu.