uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 5 of 5
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Nedelcu, Robert
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
    In Vivo Accuracy and Precision in Prosthodontics2020Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Background: There has been a dramatic increase in commercially available intraoral scanners (IOS) in the last decade, offering to replace indirect digitization of models (MOD) fabricated from impressions (IMPR). IOS has benefits of less patient discomfort and a faster workflow to fabricate fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), and implant-supported prostheses (IFD). However, in vivo evidence is lacking not only for IOS, but also for MOD, FDP and IFD fit.

    Aims: Paper I: to evaluate in vitro finish line distinction and accuracy in seven IOS and one MOD. To assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. Paper II: to evaluate a method of acquiring an in vivo reference measurement in dentate subjects and analyse accuracy and precision of IOS and MOD. Paper III: to evaluate an in vivo reference-measurement method in fully edentulous maxillae with full-arch implant treatments and to analyse accuracy of MOD and fit of existing IFD. Paper IV: to analyse precision and accuracy of IOS using different acquisition protocols compared to the reference-measurement in Paper III.

    Material and Methods: Paper I: A model with a crown preparation was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner, (ATOS), scanned with seven IOS and the MOD of an IMPR was digitized. Best-fit Alignment and 3D Compare Analysis was followed by descriptive analysis. Paper II: A reference-scan was acquired with ATOS. Subjects were scanned with IOS and one MOD of an IMPR was digitized. Accuracy and precision were evaluated after Best-Fit Alignment and 3D Compare Analysis. Paper III: A reference-measurement of implant positions was acquired with ATOS. MOD from IMPR was digitized and IFD scanned. Datum and Relative Point System Alignment was followed by accuracy and precision analysis. Paper IV: Subjects in Paper III were scanned with IOS using three different protocols, followed by accuracy and precision analysis.

    Results: Paper I: There were considerable differences between IOS depiction of finish line and finish line accuracy. Paper II: IOS presented varying results for impressions in up to ten units. No differences were found for MOD. Paper III: IFD was significantly less accurate than MOD. Paper IV: Differences were found between scanning protocols. Compared to Paper III, IFD was less accurate. No differences were found for MOD.

    Conclusion: There are relevant differences between IOS when scanning subgingival preparations. Some IOS are better suited for long-span scans. Some IOS can be used for full-arch impressions for IFD in the maxilla, however, adequate soft-tissue management is crucial.  

    List of papers
    1. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
    2018 (English)In: BMC Oral Health, ISSN 1472-6831, E-ISSN 1472-6831, Vol. 18, article id 27Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    National Category
    Surgery Medical Image Processing
    Research subject
    Computerized Image Processing
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-348983 (URN)10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 (DOI)000426323900001 ()29471825 (PubMedID)
    Available from: 2018-02-23 Created: 2018-04-26 Last updated: 2019-12-18Bibliographically approved
    2. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method
    Show others...
    2018 (English)In: Journal of Dentistry, ISSN 0300-5712, E-ISSN 1879-176X, Vol. 69, p. 110-118Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Objective: 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.

    Methods: 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.

    Results: Precision of ATOS reference scanner (mean 0.6 mu m) and D1000 (mean 0.5 mu m) 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.

    Conclusion: 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. Clinical significance: Intraoral scanners can be used as a replacement for conventional impressions when restoring up to ten units without extended edentulous spans.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 2018
    Keywords
    Digital impression, Intraoral scanner, Polyether impression, Accuracy, Precision, In vivo
    National Category
    Dentistry
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-349829 (URN)10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006 (DOI)000425888000014 ()29246490 (PubMedID)
    Available from: 2018-05-07 Created: 2018-05-07 Last updated: 2019-12-18Bibliographically approved
    3. In vivo accuracy and precision of full-arch implant-supported restorative workflow. Part 1: impression, models and restorations
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>In vivo accuracy and precision of full-arch implant-supported restorative workflow. Part 1: impression, models and restorations
    Show others...
    (English)In: Article in journal (Refereed) Submitted
    Keywords
    accuracy, precision, in vivo digital impression, intraoral scanner, polyether impression
    National Category
    Dentistry
    Research subject
    Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-399686 (URN)
    Available from: 2019-12-15 Created: 2019-12-15 Last updated: 2020-02-17Bibliographically approved
    4. In vivo accuracy and precision of full-arch implant-supported restorative workflow. Part 2: Intraoral scanning using different protocols
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>In vivo accuracy and precision of full-arch implant-supported restorative workflow. Part 2: Intraoral scanning using different protocols
    Show others...
    (English)In: Article in journal (Refereed) Submitted
    Keywords
    accuracy, precision, in vivo, intraoral scanner, digital impressions, implant impressions, fully edentulous, framework misfit
    National Category
    Dentistry
    Research subject
    Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-399688 (URN)
    Available from: 2019-12-15 Created: 2019-12-15 Last updated: 2020-02-17Bibliographically approved
    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
    Download (jpg)
    presentationsbild
  • 2.
    Nedelcu, Robert
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
    Olsson, Pontus
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Division of Visual Information and Interaction. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis and Human-Computer Interaction.
    Nyström, Ingela
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Division of Visual Information and Interaction. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis and Human-Computer Interaction. Uppsala Univ, Dept Informat Technol, Ctr Image Anal, Box 337, S-75105 Uppsala, Sweden..
    Rydén, Jesper
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Mathematics, Applied Mathematics and Statistics.
    Thor, Andreas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
    Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method2018In: Journal of Dentistry, ISSN 0300-5712, E-ISSN 1879-176X, Vol. 69, p. 110-118Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objective: 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.

    Methods: 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.

    Results: Precision of ATOS reference scanner (mean 0.6 mu m) and D1000 (mean 0.5 mu m) 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.

    Conclusion: 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. Clinical significance: Intraoral scanners can be used as a replacement for conventional impressions when restoring up to ten units without extended edentulous spans.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 3.
    Nedelcu, Robert
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
    Olsson, Pontus
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Division of Visual Information and Interaction. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis and Human-Computer Interaction.
    Nyström, Ingela
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Division of Visual Information and Interaction. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis and Human-Computer Interaction.
    Thor, Andreas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
    Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison2018In: BMC Oral Health, ISSN 1472-6831, E-ISSN 1472-6831, Vol. 18, article id 27Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 4.
    Nedelcu, Robert
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
    Olsson, Pontus
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Division of Visual Information and Interaction. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis and Human-Computer Interaction.
    Thulin, Måns
    School of Mathematics and Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, UK .
    Nyström, Ingela
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Centre for Image Analysis. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Centre for Image Analysis. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis and Human-Computer Interaction. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Division of Visual Information and Interaction.
    Thor, Andreas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Plastic Surgery.
    In vivo accuracy and precision of full-arch implant-supported restorative workflow. Part 1: impression, models and restorationsIn: Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 5.
    Nedelcu, Robert
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
    Olsson, Pontus
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Division of Visual Information and Interaction. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis and Human-Computer Interaction.
    Thulin, Måns
    School of Mathematics and Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, UK .
    Nyström, Ingela
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Centre for Image Analysis. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Centre for Image Analysis. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computerized Image Analysis and Human-Computer Interaction. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Division of Visual Information and Interaction.
    Thor, Andreas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Plastic Surgery.
    In vivo accuracy and precision of full-arch implant-supported restorative workflow. Part 2: Intraoral scanning using different protocolsIn: Article in journal (Refereed)
1 - 5 of 5
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf