Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Mar;95(3):194-200.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.01.003.

A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch-probe scanner

Affiliations

A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch-probe scanner

Anna Persson et al. J Prosthet Dent. 2006 Mar.

Abstract

Statement of problem: The fit of a dental restoration depends on quality throughout the entire manufacturing process. There is difficulty in assessing the surface topography of an object with a complex form, such as teeth, since there is no exact reference form.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the repeatability and relative accuracy of 2 dental surface digitization devices. A computer-aided design (CAD) technique was used for evaluation to calculate and present the deviations 3-dimensionally.

Material and methods: Ten dies of teeth prepared for complete crowns were fabricated in presintered yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Y-TZP). The surfaces were digitized 3 times each with an optical or mechanical digitizer. The number of points in the point clouds from each reading were calculated and used as the CAD reference model (CRM). Alignments were performed by registration software that works by minimizing a distance criterion. In color-difference maps, the distribution of the discrepancies between the surfaces in the CRM and the 3-dimensional surface models was identified and located.

Results: The repeatability of both scanners was within 10 microm, based on SD and absolute mean values. The qualitative evaluation resulted in an even distribution of the deviations in the optical digitizer, whereas the dominating part of the surfaces in the mechanical digitizer showed no deviations. The relative accuracy of the 2 surface digitization devices was within +/- 6 microm, based on median values.

Conclusion: The repeatability of the optical digitizer was comparable with the mechanical digitization device, and the relative accuracy was similar.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources