An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.
Identifieur interne : 000B28 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 000B27; suivant : 000B29An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.
Auteurs : Junping Ma Bergin ; Jeffrey E. Rubenstein ; Lloyd Mancl ; James S. Brudvik ; Ariel J. RaigrodskiSource :
- The Journal of prosthetic dentistry [ 1097-6841 ] ; 2013.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Algorithms, Dental Arch (pathology), Dental Implants, Dental Impression Technique (statistics & numerical data), Dental Models, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted (methods), Imaging, Three-Dimensional (methods), Jaw, Edentulous (pathology), Mandible (pathology), Photogrammetry (statistics & numerical data), Reproducibility of Results.
- MESH :
- chemical : Dental Implants.
- methods : Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Imaging, Three-Dimensional.
- pathology : Dental Arch, Jaw, Edentulous, Mandible.
- statistics & numerical data : Dental Impression Technique, Photogrammetry.
- Algorithms, Dental Models, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Reproducibility of Results.
Abstract
Conventional impression techniques for recording the location and orientation of implant-supported, complete-arch prostheses are time consuming and prone to error. The direct optical recording of the location and orientation of implants, without the need for intermediate transfer steps, could reduce or eliminate those disadvantages.
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60370-4
PubMed: 24079558
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:24079558Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Bergin, Junping Ma" sort="Bergin, Junping Ma" uniqKey="Bergin J" first="Junping Ma" last="Bergin">Junping Ma Bergin</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Resident, Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Electronic address: jmbergin@u.washington.edu.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Rubenstein, Jeffrey E" sort="Rubenstein, Jeffrey E" uniqKey="Rubenstein J" first="Jeffrey E" last="Rubenstein">Jeffrey E. Rubenstein</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Mancl, Lloyd" sort="Mancl, Lloyd" uniqKey="Mancl L" first="Lloyd" last="Mancl">Lloyd Mancl</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Brudvik, James S" sort="Brudvik, James S" uniqKey="Brudvik J" first="James S" last="Brudvik">James S. Brudvik</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Raigrodski, Ariel J" sort="Raigrodski, Ariel J" uniqKey="Raigrodski A" first="Ariel J" last="Raigrodski">Ariel J. Raigrodski</name>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno>
<date when="2013">2013</date>
<idno type="RBID">pubmed:24079558</idno>
<idno type="pmid">24079558</idno>
<idno type="doi">10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60370-4</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000B28</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000B28</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Bergin, Junping Ma" sort="Bergin, Junping Ma" uniqKey="Bergin J" first="Junping Ma" last="Bergin">Junping Ma Bergin</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Resident, Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Electronic address: jmbergin@u.washington.edu.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Rubenstein, Jeffrey E" sort="Rubenstein, Jeffrey E" uniqKey="Rubenstein J" first="Jeffrey E" last="Rubenstein">Jeffrey E. Rubenstein</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Mancl, Lloyd" sort="Mancl, Lloyd" uniqKey="Mancl L" first="Lloyd" last="Mancl">Lloyd Mancl</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Brudvik, James S" sort="Brudvik, James S" uniqKey="Brudvik J" first="James S" last="Brudvik">James S. Brudvik</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Raigrodski, Ariel J" sort="Raigrodski, Ariel J" uniqKey="Raigrodski A" first="Ariel J" last="Raigrodski">Ariel J. Raigrodski</name>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j">The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title>
<idno type="eISSN">1097-6841</idno>
<imprint><date when="2013" type="published">2013</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Algorithms</term>
<term>Dental Arch (pathology)</term>
<term>Dental Implants</term>
<term>Dental Impression Technique (statistics & numerical data)</term>
<term>Dental Models</term>
<term>Feasibility Studies</term>
<term>Humans</term>
<term>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted (methods)</term>
<term>Imaging, Three-Dimensional (methods)</term>
<term>Jaw, Edentulous (pathology)</term>
<term>Mandible (pathology)</term>
<term>Photogrammetry (statistics & numerical data)</term>
<term>Reproducibility of Results</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Implants</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</term>
<term>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="pathology" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Arch</term>
<term>Jaw, Edentulous</term>
<term>Mandible</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="statistics & numerical data" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Impression Technique</term>
<term>Photogrammetry</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Algorithms</term>
<term>Dental Models</term>
<term>Feasibility Studies</term>
<term>Humans</term>
<term>Reproducibility of Results</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Conventional impression techniques for recording the location and orientation of implant-supported, complete-arch prostheses are time consuming and prone to error. The direct optical recording of the location and orientation of implants, without the need for intermediate transfer steps, could reduce or eliminate those disadvantages.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">24079558</PMID>
<DateCompleted><Year>2014</Year>
<Month>08</Month>
<Day>29</Day>
</DateCompleted>
<DateRevised><Year>2013</Year>
<Month>10</Month>
<Day>01</Day>
</DateRevised>
<Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1097-6841</ISSN>
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>110</Volume>
<Issue>4</Issue>
<PubDate><Year>2013</Year>
<Month>Oct</Month>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
<Title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</Title>
<ISOAbbreviation>J Prosthet Dent</ISOAbbreviation>
</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.</ArticleTitle>
<Pagination><MedlinePgn>243-51</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
<ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60370-4</ELocationID>
<ELocationID EIdType="pii" ValidYN="Y">S0022-3913(13)60370-4</ELocationID>
<Abstract><AbstractText Label="STATEMENT OF PROBLEM" NlmCategory="BACKGROUND">Conventional impression techniques for recording the location and orientation of implant-supported, complete-arch prostheses are time consuming and prone to error. The direct optical recording of the location and orientation of implants, without the need for intermediate transfer steps, could reduce or eliminate those disadvantages.</AbstractText>
<AbstractText Label="PURPOSE" NlmCategory="OBJECTIVE">The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of using a photogrammetric technique to record the location and orientation of multiple implants and to compare the results with those of a conventional complete-arch impression technique.</AbstractText>
<AbstractText Label="MATERIAL AND METHODS" NlmCategory="METHODS">A stone cast of an edentulous mandibular arch containing 5 implant analogs was fabricated to create a master model. The 3-dimensional (3D) spatial orientations of implant analogs on the master model were measured with a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) (control). Five definitive casts were made from the master model with a splinted impression technique. The positions of the implant analogs on the 5 casts were measured with a NobelProcera scanner (conventional method). Prototype optical targets were attached to the master model implant analogs, and 5 sets of images were recorded with a digital camera and a standardized image capture protocol. Dimensional data were imported into commercially available photogrammetry software (photogrammetric method). The precision and accuracy of the 2 methods were compared with a 2-sample t test (α=.05) and a 95% confidence interval.</AbstractText>
<AbstractText Label="RESULTS" NlmCategory="RESULTS">The location precision (standard error of measurement) for CMM was 3.9 µm (95% CI 2.7 to 7.1), for photogrammetry, 5.6 µm (95% CI 3.4 to 16.1), and for the conventional method, 17.2 µm (95% CI 10.3 to 49.4). The average measurement error was 26.2 µm (95% CI 15.9 to 36.6) for the conventional method and 28.8 µm (95% CI 24.8 to 32.9) for the photogrammetric method. The overall measurement accuracy was not significantly different when comparing the conventional to the photogrammetric method (mean difference = -2.6 µm, 95% CI -12.8 to 7.6).</AbstractText>
<AbstractText Label="CONCLUSIONS" NlmCategory="CONCLUSIONS">The precision of the photogrammetric method was similar to CMM, but lower for the conventional method as compared to CMM and the photogrammetric method. However, the overall measurement accuracy of the photogrammetric and conventional methods was similar.</AbstractText>
<CopyrightInformation>Copyright © 2013 The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.</CopyrightInformation>
</Abstract>
<AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Bergin</LastName>
<ForeName>Junping Ma</ForeName>
<Initials>JM</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Resident, Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Electronic address: jmbergin@u.washington.edu.</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Rubenstein</LastName>
<ForeName>Jeffrey E</ForeName>
<Initials>JE</Initials>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Mancl</LastName>
<ForeName>Lloyd</ForeName>
<Initials>L</Initials>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Brudvik</LastName>
<ForeName>James S</ForeName>
<Initials>JS</Initials>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Raigrodski</LastName>
<ForeName>Ariel J</ForeName>
<Initials>AJ</Initials>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<Language>eng</Language>
<PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType>
<PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType>
<PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType>
</PublicationTypeList>
</Article>
<MedlineJournalInfo><Country>United States</Country>
<MedlineTA>J Prosthet Dent</MedlineTA>
<NlmUniqueID>0376364</NlmUniqueID>
<ISSNLinking>0022-3913</ISSNLinking>
</MedlineJournalInfo>
<ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber>
<NameOfSubstance UI="D015921">Dental Implants</NameOfSubstance>
</Chemical>
</ChemicalList>
<CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset>
<CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset>
<MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000465" MajorTopicYN="N">Algorithms</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003724" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Arch</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="N">pathology</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D015921" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Implants</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003761" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Impression Technique</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000706" MajorTopicYN="Y">statistics & numerical data</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003765" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Models</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005240" MajorTopicYN="N">Feasibility Studies</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007091" MajorTopicYN="N">Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D021621" MajorTopicYN="N">Imaging, Three-Dimensional</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007575" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="N">pathology</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008334" MajorTopicYN="N">Mandible</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="N">pathology</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D010780" MajorTopicYN="N">Photogrammetry</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000706" MajorTopicYN="Y">statistics & numerical data</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D015203" MajorTopicYN="N">Reproducibility of Results</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
</MeshHeadingList>
</MedlineCitation>
<PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2013</Year>
<Month>10</Month>
<Day>2</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2013</Year>
<Month>10</Month>
<Day>2</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2014</Year>
<Month>8</Month>
<Day>30</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
</History>
<PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24079558</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="pii">S0022-3913(13)60370-4</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60370-4</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</PubmedData>
</pubmed>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000B28 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000B28 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Wicri/Santé |area= EdenteV2 |flux= PubMed |étape= Corpus |type= RBID |clé= pubmed:24079558 |texte= An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques. }}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:24079558" \ | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \ | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. | ![]() |