Academic literature on the topic 'Conventional impression'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Conventional impression.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Conventional impression"
Kekez, Ivna Vuković, Gordana Paić Karega, Marina Gadža, Benjamin Benzon, Ivana Medvedec Mikić, Katarina Vukojevic, and Danijela Kalibovic Govorko. "Conventional vs. Digital Dental Impression." International Journal of Reliable and Quality E-Healthcare 11, no. 1 (January 2022): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijrqeh.298631.
Full textMangano, Alessandro, Matteo Beretta, Giuseppe Luongo, Carlo Mangano, and Francesco Mangano. "Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients." Open Dentistry Journal 12, no. 1 (January 31, 2018): 118–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010118.
Full textGogushev, Kiril, and Metodi Abadjiev. "CONVENTIONAL VS DIGITAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE FOR MANUFACTURING OF THREE-UNIT ZIRCONIA BRIDGES: CLINICAL TIME EFFICIENCY." Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers) 27, no. 2 (June 4, 2021): 3765–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.5272/jimab.2021272.3765.
Full textKim, Tae-Gyung, Sungtae Kim, Hyunmin Choi, Jae-Hoon Lee, Jae-Hong Kim, and Hong-Seok Moon. "Clinical Acceptability of the Internal Gap of CAD/CAM PD-AG Crowns Using Intraoral Digital Impressions." BioMed Research International 2016 (2016): 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7065454.
Full textSeo, KweonSoo, and Sunjai Kim. "A New Method to Evaluate Trueness and Precision of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques for Complete Dental Arch." Applied Sciences 11, no. 10 (May 18, 2021): 4612. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11104612.
Full textHaddadi, Yasser, Golnosh Bahrami, and Flemming Isidor. "Accuracy of Intra-oral Scans Compared to Conventional Impression in Vitro." Primary Dental Journal 8, no. 3 (September 2019): 34–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/205016819827601491.
Full textSayed, Mohammed E., Abdulkarim Hussain Alshehri, Bandar M. A. Al-Makramani, Fuad Al-Sanabani, Fawzia Ibraheem Shaabi, Fatimah H. Alsurayyie, Walaa Magdy Ahmed, Hosain Al-Mansour, and Saurabh Jain. "Accuracy of Master Casts Generated Using Conventional and Digital Impression Modalities: Part 1—The Half-Arch Dimension." Applied Sciences 11, no. 24 (December 17, 2021): 12034. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app112412034.
Full textSfondrini, Maria Francesca, Paola Gandini, Maurizio Malfatto, Francesco Di Corato, Federico Trovati, and Andrea Scribante. "Computerized Casts for Orthodontic Purpose Using Powder-Free Intraoral Scanners: Accuracy, Execution Time, and Patient Feedback." BioMed Research International 2018 (2018): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4103232.
Full textRippe, Marília Pivetta, Elen Guerra, Arianne Vallim Pinto Coelho, Lilian Costa Anami, Renata Marques de Melo Marinho, Marco Antonio Bottino, and Luiz Felipe Valandro. "Effect of different impression methods and ceramic materials on adaptation of inlays." Brazilian Dental Science 21, no. 3 (August 1, 2018): 296. http://dx.doi.org/10.14295/bds.2018.v21i3.1543.
Full textSchmidt, Alexander, Leona Klussmann, Bernd Wöstmann, and Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz. "Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update." Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 3 (March 4, 2020): 688. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030688.
Full textDissertations / Theses on the topic "Conventional impression"
Howell, Kent Jon. "Accuracy of the Biomet 3i Encode® Robocast™ Technology Versus Conventional Implant Impression Techniques." The Ohio State University, 2011. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1306772544.
Full textGintaute, Aiste [Verfasser], and Wael [Akademischer Betreuer] Att. "Accuracy of computerized and conventional impression-making procedures of straight and tilted dental implants." Freiburg : Universität, 2016. http://d-nb.info/1119718031/34.
Full textLoos, Rene. "Vergleichende Untersuchung von intraoraler und extraoraler Digitalisierung nach Modellherstellung mit CEREC-3D®." Doctoral thesis, Saechsische Landesbibliothek- Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek Dresden, 2009. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-ds-1226095011745-95833.
Full textUsing CAD/CAM-technology in dentistry is supposed to reduce or eliminate potential sources of error resulting from the manual craftsmanship needed when making dental restorative restorations. For any CAD/CAM-made restoration, a digitalization as precise as possible is basic. In this study, the precision of the digital measurement of teeth was examined in-vitro and invivo. The intraoral CEREC-3D® system was compared with conventional impression taking and model making and subsequent digitalization (Digiscan). A one-stage putty-and-wash impression was taken from a training model. The first upper molar in this model was prepared for a full crown. The resulting gypsum model was extraorally digitized. This master model was digitized with simulated intraoral digitizing and, after taking again an impression and making a gypsum model, with extraoral digitizing. The data was then aligned to the reference CAD-model, and the threedimensional differences were calculated. The clinical trial included ten probands and was approved by the responsible ethical committee. From each proband, a conventional impression as well as an intraoral digitizing was made from the upper jaw. The gypsum model resulting from the impression was digitized extraorally, and the data was aligned to the data-sets of the intraoral digitizing. The threedimensional differences were calculated analogous to the in-vitro analysis. The threedimensional analysis showed mean differences between ±17 and 35 microns for the prepared tooth 16 and its neighboring teeth. Looking at tooth 16 alone, the mean differences were around ±17 microns. Compared to these values, the mean differences calculated for intraoral digitizing of a whole quadrant were considerably higher (±26-81 microns). The smallest mean deviations were found at the center of alignment. The conventional method (impression taking - model making - extraoral digitizing) showed a significantly higher precision (±9-19 microns). The results show that the CEREC-3D®camera is suitable for single tooth and short-span restorations. However, the indication is not given for long-span restorations using the intraoral system. Such restorations should always be made after conventional impression taking, model making and subsequent extraoral digitizing. The precision of the intraoral digitizing is influenced by clinical parameters in an acceptable way as shown by the comparison of invitro and in-vivo data. The powder-layer of average 28.6 microns (51) has to be taken into consideration, when using intraoral digitizing
Loos, Rene. "Vergleichende Untersuchung von intraoraler und extraoraler Digitalisierung nach Modellherstellung mit CEREC-3D®." Doctoral thesis, Technische Universität Dresden, 2008. https://tud.qucosa.de/id/qucosa%3A23812.
Full textUsing CAD/CAM-technology in dentistry is supposed to reduce or eliminate potential sources of error resulting from the manual craftsmanship needed when making dental restorative restorations. For any CAD/CAM-made restoration, a digitalization as precise as possible is basic. In this study, the precision of the digital measurement of teeth was examined in-vitro and invivo. The intraoral CEREC-3D® system was compared with conventional impression taking and model making and subsequent digitalization (Digiscan). A one-stage putty-and-wash impression was taken from a training model. The first upper molar in this model was prepared for a full crown. The resulting gypsum model was extraorally digitized. This master model was digitized with simulated intraoral digitizing and, after taking again an impression and making a gypsum model, with extraoral digitizing. The data was then aligned to the reference CAD-model, and the threedimensional differences were calculated. The clinical trial included ten probands and was approved by the responsible ethical committee. From each proband, a conventional impression as well as an intraoral digitizing was made from the upper jaw. The gypsum model resulting from the impression was digitized extraorally, and the data was aligned to the data-sets of the intraoral digitizing. The threedimensional differences were calculated analogous to the in-vitro analysis. The threedimensional analysis showed mean differences between ±17 and 35 microns for the prepared tooth 16 and its neighboring teeth. Looking at tooth 16 alone, the mean differences were around ±17 microns. Compared to these values, the mean differences calculated for intraoral digitizing of a whole quadrant were considerably higher (±26-81 microns). The smallest mean deviations were found at the center of alignment. The conventional method (impression taking - model making - extraoral digitizing) showed a significantly higher precision (±9-19 microns). The results show that the CEREC-3D®camera is suitable for single tooth and short-span restorations. However, the indication is not given for long-span restorations using the intraoral system. Such restorations should always be made after conventional impression taking, model making and subsequent extraoral digitizing. The precision of the intraoral digitizing is influenced by clinical parameters in an acceptable way as shown by the comparison of invitro and in-vivo data. The powder-layer of average 28.6 microns (51) has to be taken into consideration, when using intraoral digitizing.
Anadioti, Evanthia. "Internal and marginal fit Of pressed and cad lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions." Thesis, University of Iowa, 2013. https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/2435.
Full textHung, Wei-Lin, and 洪維琳. "Comparison of subjective perception and impression discrepancy between conventional and digital intra-oral impression." Thesis, 2017. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/37297081415865457992.
Full text高雄醫學大學
口腔衛生學系碩士在職專班
105
Background and objective: Acquiring 3D digital images through “Digital Intra-oral Impression” to produce dental crowns is the latest promising future. However, the high cost and low prevalence of the equipment made it unacceptable for the majority of domestic dentists. Intra-oral scanner system still under continuous developing and become more popular which deserved further study for its clinical results. This study analyzes the subjective perception of dental clinical patients and impression discrepancy toward conventional and digital intraoral impression and discussion on the relationship between them. In further, providing the user’s clinical evaluation as advice for dentists. Materials & Methods: There were thirty subjects participated in this study. Subjects were asked to estimate their subjective perception before and after receiving the conventional and digital impression from a dentist. Then measuring the discrepancies between two different methods of the impression. The final part, all the measurement data were analyzed statistically by paired t-test, repeated measures two-way ANOVA, Kolmogorov- Smirnov test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Result: There were thirty subjects participated in this study (27.77±8.19 years old in average, 17 males, 13 females). Over all, there was a statistically significant difference in most subjects’ perception. Most subjects prefer digital impression. In addition, gender affects the negative feelings between two different impression procedures. After measuring the discrepancy of scan results, we found that lingual aspect has more discrepancy than other aspects. The analysis suggested that no association between subjective perception and discrepancy. Conclusion: Through our study, it is proven digital intra-oral impression improves the uncomfortable feeling and reduce the tension of conventional impression method. However, lingual aspect has more inaccuracy on digital impression. Finally, the subjective perception has no association with the impression discrepancy.
Sousa, Vera Lúcia Azevedo de. "Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions and conventional impressions: at the level of partial removable prostheses." Master's thesis, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/81980.
Full textIntrodução: A introdução do sistema CAD/CAM permite utilizar ficheiros STL obtidos por uma câmara intra-oral para confeção de próteses removíveis em modelos 3D, com a ausência do envio de modelos de gesso ou impressões convencionais em silicone ou alginato para o laboratório.Materiais e Métodos: Realizou-se uma revisão bibliográfica na base de dados PubMed com a combinação de palavras-chave e conectores Booleanos: “removable dentures” OR “removable prostheses” AND (“digital impression technique” OR “CAD/CAM”) NOT “fixed prostheses”, seguida de uma segunda revisão nas bases de dados PubMed, Web of ScienceTM, B-On, ClinicalKey® e ScienceDirect com a combinação: “CAD/CAM” AND “Intraoral digital impression” AND “Prosthodontic”. O estudo clínico piloto consistiu na realização, em 3 doentes, de duas impressões convencionais em alginato e duas impressões digitais intraorais com o scanner Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona, Wals, Áustria), efetuadas pelo mesmo operador. Os dois modelos de gesso obtidos das impressões convencionais foram digitalizados, pelo mesmo scanner, e as duas imagens resultantes foram sobrepostas, assim como as duas imagens das impressões digitais. Seguiu-se a análise através de medições lineares no software Cerec inLab SW 15.0 (Sirona Dental Systems, Wals, Áustria).Resultados: Na revisão bibliográfica obtivemos 35 artigos na Pubmed. Após leitura do título, abstract e aplicando os critérios de inclusão, selecionamos 4 artigos. Atráves das bases de dados ClinicalKey®, B-On, Web of ScienceTM e ScienceDirect selecionamos 14 artigos e 5 por referência cruzada manual, ficando com 23 artigos. Na análise das imagens, realizamos medições lineares, horizontais e verticais, para verificar a exatidão e a precisão, respectivamente. A exatidão variou em média 0,31mm e 0,49mm entre o modelo de referência e os modelos virtuais obtido pela digitalização do modelo de referência e da digitalização intra-oral, respectivamente. A precisão das impressões digitais intra-orais apresenta melhores resultados do que as impressões convencionais em desdentações parciais com pequenas áreas edêntulas. Conclusão: Dentro das limitações deste estudo, podemos verificar que análise da precisão das impressões digitais apresentou melhores resultados do que os modelos de referência digitalizados em desdentados parciais com pequenas áreas êdentulas. Neste estudo piloto verificou-se que a precisão da técnica de impressão digital é influenciada pelas condições da cavidade oral e pelo tipo de substrato digitalizado, já as diferenças na exatidão podem atribuir-se à mudança dimensional do alginato e distorção dos modelos de referência. A análise da exatidão da técnica de impressão convencional é influenciada pelos problemas intrínsecos à mesma e por não terem sido utilizados pontos de referência precisos para efetuar as medições.
Introduction: The introduction of CAD/CAM technology allows the use of STL files obtained by an intraoral camera for production of fixed and removable prostheses, without sending cast stone models or conventional intraoral impressions in silicone or alginate to the laboratory.Materials and Methods: A literature review was carried out through the search engine: Pubmed, using the combinations of key-words and Boolean connectors: “removable dentures” OR “removable prostheses” AND (“digital impression technique” OR “CAD-CAM”) NOT “fixed prostheses” and then a second literature review was carried out through the search engines: PubMed, Web of ScienceTM, B-On, ClinicalKey® and ScienceDirect, using the combination:“CAD/CAM” AND “Intraoral digital impression” AND “Prosthodontic”. A clinical pilot study was performed with 3 patients, each patient had two conventional impressions in alginate and two intraoral digital impressions done with the Cerec Omnicam scanner (Dentsply Sirona, Wals, Austria), by the same operator; posteriorly, two stone cast models were also scanned. The two scans of the digital impressions were overlapped as were the two scans the stone cast models and analyzed in the Cerec inLab SW 15.0 software (Sirona Dental Systems, Wals, Austria). Results: In the literature review, we obtained 35 articles in the PubMed. After reading title, abstract and applying the inclusion criteria, we selected 4 articles. Through search engine ClinicalKey®, Web of ScienceTM, B-On and ScienceDirect were selected 14 articles and 5 articles by manual cross reference, staying with 23 articles. In the images analysis, linear measurements, horizontal and vertical were obtained, to verify trueness and precision, respectively. The trueness varied in mean 0.31mm and 0.49mm between the reference model and the virtual models obtained by the scan of the reference model and the intraoral scan, respectively. The precision of intraoral digital impressions are better than conventional impressions in partial edentulous jaws with small edentulous areas. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, we can verify that the precision analysis of intraoral scans was better than the scans of reference model in partial edentulous jaws with small edentulous areas. In this pilot study we verified that the precision of digital impression technique is influenced by the oral cavity conditions and by substrate scanning and the differences in the trueness can be attributed to the dimensional change of the alginate and distortion of the reference models. The trueness analysis of the conventional impression technique was influenced by intrinsic problems and the fact that precise reference points for measurements were not used.
Huang, Yu-Chun, and 黃于純. "Comparison the displacement and accuracy between conventional and digital impression methods for mobile tooth." Thesis, 2016. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/73955050025264214506.
Full text高雄醫學大學
牙醫學系碩士在職專班
104
Objective: Periodontitis with mobile teeth which require additional stabilization/ splinting treatment or final fixed prostheses. Truly and precisely transfer mobile tooth into the laboratory for an accurate working cast is very important and tough. Elastomeric impression material with varies viscosities .Which kind of viscosity combination in conventional impression technique can get less displacement for mobile tooth . Or intraoral digital impression technique can solve the problem from teeth displacement during the conventional impression procedure. Materials and methods: 6 Impressions techniques (4 conventional and 2 digital) were performed on a right mandibular half arch acrylic model containing 3 natural teeth (44,45,47). Standard Porcelain fused to metal tooth preparation was performed on 2nd premolar and 2nd molar as 3-unit C&B (45x47)abutments. A vacuum suck down acrylic plate was made as an index. According to Miller’s classification, natural tooth 2nd premolar was made as a mobility II teeth , 2nd molar was made as a mobility I teeth and 1st premolar was a non-mobile tooth. Four different viscosity PVS impression material (Group 1-4), use one step double mixed impression technique performed on a preformed 2.5-3.0 mm tray spacer perforated custom tray. Two digital impression with introral scanner (3-shape TRIOS Cart) and extraoral scanner (3-shape D850 Lab scanner) was performed directly on the same mandibular half arch acrylic model .Four viscosity combination were Group 1 : Monophase for both injection type and tray material (Honigum, Germany, DMG); Group 2: Light body wash+ Monophase (Take-1, Kerr); Group 3: XLV + Heavy body (Aquasil, USA, Densply); Group 4: Light body + Putty soft (Silagum, Germany, DMG). Every group had 5 repeated samples. Total 20 ADA Type IV stone casts were scanned by 3-shape Lab scanner. Every sample had three intra- abutment (B1, B2, B3) and three inter-abutment distances (D1, D2, D3) to be measured by CAD software. All data were analysis by one-way ANOVA and one sample t-test. Results: For conventional impression techniques, all have mobile tooth buccal displacement and reduced inter-abutment distance. The displacement of mobility II tooth was less in light body + monophase (-0.25mm) and light body + heavy body (-0.26mm), but larger on monophase only (-0.47mm) and light body + putty soft (-0.43mm). The displacement of mobility I tooth was the same with less buccal displacement in light body + monophase(-0.07mm) and light body + heavy body (-0.08mm),but larger on monophase only(-0.18mm) and light body + putty soft (-0.19mm). The degree of mesiodistal deviation was less in light body + monophase (-0.12 mm). For intraoral digital impression technique (3-shape TRIOS Cart) which had less buccal deviation on mobility I (-0.09 mm) and mobility II tooth (+0.07mm ),but larger on mesiodistal deviation (-0.36mm). For Lab scanner (3-shape D850) which had the least deviation for both buccal or mesiodistal, mobility II tooth has less buccal deviation (0.04mm). Non-mobile tooth impression with Lab scanner (3-shape D850) has the least deviation (0.019mm) when direct scanning on mandibular half arch acrylic model and mean deviation of 4 conventional impressions was 0.05mm. No statistic difference between four conventional impression materials and lab scanner, but has statistic difference with intraoral digital impression. Conclusion: Conventional impression and lab scanner can obtain accurate working cast on non-mobile tooth. In mobility I tooth using light body and monophase (tray material) has the least deviation on buccal and mesiodistal. But in mobility II tooth, whether conventional or intraoral digital impression cannot fulfill the clinical acceptable requirement for fixed dental prostheses. Conventional impression technique has too much buccal displacement and intraoral scanner (3-shape TRIOS) has larger mesiodistal deviation on mobility II tooth. Therefore, the final impression of mobility II tooth may be postponed until stable to mobility I and combination light body for injection type with monophase for tray material produces a more accurate definitive cast than those fabricated with monophase only or with putty soft for tray material. Intraoral scanner can use in provisional treatment prostheses, but it needs well-trained and must be aware of larger mesiodistal deviation.
Lino, Carolina Alves. "Técnica de impressão digital vs. convencional: comparação em desdentados totais." Master's thesis, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/82703.
Full textIntrodução: Em prótese total removível, a impressão convencional permite obter modelos de gesso com uma reprodução ótima dos tecidos orais. O aparecimento de scanners intraorais trouxe, todavia, a introdução na prática clínica de um método de impressão digital, eliminando a impressão física dos tecidos e o modelo de gesso. Adicionado à tecnologia CAD-CAM, este novo método possibilita cada vez mais um fluxo digital dos procedimentos protéticos. No entanto, o número limitado de publicações e o facto de ser uma tecnologia recente é génese de controvérsia na sua utilização em prótese removível. Assim, este estudo piloto objetiva a comparação da impressão digital em relação ao gold-standard (impressão convencional) no paciente desdentado total.Materiais e Métodos: Realizou-se uma revisão da literatura nas bases de dados PubMed, Cochrane e WebofScienceTM, concomitantemente a uma pesquisa manual. Com uma amostra de cinco pacientes, iniciou-se o protocolo experimental com uma impressão convencional para as duas arcadas com um elastómero seguindo-se as impressões digitais com o scanner Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona, York, USA). A digitalização dos modelos de gesso resultantes das primeiras impressões foi executada pelo D900L (3Shape, Copenhaga, Dinamarca), um scanner laboratorial de elevada precisão. Posteriormente, os modelos resultantes foram sobrepostos e analisados tridimensionalmente recorrendo ao software Geomagic® ControlTM (3D Systems, Rock Hill, USA), com a recolha dos diversos valores de desvio.Resultados: A revisão da literatura obteve um total de dezassete artigos, dois livros e uma tese. A análise dos resultados obtidos do estudo piloto demonstrou que o desvio médio maxilar atingiu valores entre -0,2732mm e 0,146mm e o mandibular valores entre -0,5426mm e 0,3428mm. Na diferenciação das várias zonas de suporte verificou-se que nas localizações maxilares com suporte secundário o desvio atingiu maioritariamente valores positivos ao contrário das de suporte primário. A nível mandibular os resultados não foram conclusivos para as diferentes localizações. Conclusão: Os resultados deste estudo sugerem que a performance do scanner intraoral e os valores de desvio médio (comparação digital-convencional) estão dependentes da reabsorção óssea do paciente e das características histológicas que as diferentes localizações anatómicas apresentam, bem como da anatomia topográfica dos rebordos. Acresce a estas limitações a abordagem mucoestática da impressão digital, sendo notório o desvio em zonas sujeitas a compressão (suporte secundário) e a escassez de informação em regiões de difícil acesso do scanner. Por estes motivos, esta metodologia digital de impressão é ainda limitada na prática clínica de prótese total removível.
Introduction: In removable prosthodontics, a conventional impression will obtain cast models with excellent reproduction of oral tissues. However, with the introduction of intraoral scanners into clinical practice, digital impressions have found a way of putting aside the physical impression of tissues and cast models. With CAD-CAM technology, this new method increases the possibility of a digital workflow for prosthodontic procedures. Nevertheless, being this a new technology and with reduced literature, mainly in removable prosthodontics, some controversy is present. Therefore, this pilot study aims to compare digital impressions with the gold-standard (conventional impression) in edentulous patients.Materials and Methods: A literature review was conducted on the databases PubMed, Cochrane, and WebofScienceTM, alongside with a manual search. With a sample of five patients, the experimental protocol began with a conventional impression of both jaws with an elastomer followed by the digital impressions by Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona, York, USA), done by the same operator. The digitalization of the cast models, which resulted from the first impressions, was made by D900L (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), a high accuracy laboratorial scanner. Afterwards, the resulting models were overlapped and analyzed tridimensionally with Geomagic® ControlTM (3D Systems, Rock Hill, USA), and the deviation values were registered.Results: The literature review obtained a total of seventeen articles, two books, and one dissertation. The analysis of the pilot study results showed that, in a conventional-digital comparison, the maxillary mean deviation ranged from -0,2732mm to 0,146mm and the mandibular from -0,5426mm to 0,3428mm. The differentiation of the various support regions showed that on maxillary locations with secondary support the deviation reached mainly positive values, as opposed to those with primary support. In the mandible the results were inconclusive for all locations. Conclusion: The results of this pilot study suggest that the performance of the intraoral scanner and the values of mean deviation (digital-conventional comparison) depend on the bone reabsorption of the patient, and on the histological characteristics that the different anatomical locations present, as well as on the topographic anatomy of the bone ridges. In addition to these limitations, there is a mucostatic approach of the digital impression, in which the deviation within the areas that are subject to compression (secondary support) is very clear, and a lack of information in areas of difficult access for the scanner. Due to these reasons, the application of this digital impression methodology is still restricted within the scope of removable prosthodontics.
Viegas, Diogo Miguel da Costa Cabecinha Pacheco. "Avaliação da precisão e fidelidade do método de impressão digital vs. convencional : e a influência da direção de digitalização, tipo de scanner e experiência adquirida do operador." Doctoral thesis, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10451/49988.
Full textObjective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of the type of impression technique, type of intraoral scanner, scanning direction and operator experience on the accuracy of the final cast. Material and Methods: A partial master cast was used as a reference. A total of 128 scans were obtained to be separed into two groups: the conventional method (n=32) and the digital method (n=96). The digital group was divided into three groups: TRIOS 3 (n=32), Omnicam (n=32) and CS 3600 (n=32). These these groups were subdivided according to the scanning direction (n=16), and each scan was superimposed to the digital reference cast to measure the trueness and precision of the procedures. Results: The overall precision values for the type of impression were 59.89 ± 13.08 μm for conventional and 13.42 ± 4.28 μm for digital (p <0.05); the values for trueness were 49.37 ± 19.13 μm for conventional and 53.53 ± 4.97 μm for digital (p >0,05); the scanning direction trueness values were 53.05 ± 4.36 μm for continuous and 54.03 ± 5.52 μm for segmented (p >0,05); and the precision values were 14.18 ± 4.67 μm for continuous and 12.67 ± 3.75 μm for segmented (p> 0.05). For the scanner type, the trueness values were 50.06 ± 2.65 μm for Trios 3, 57.45 ± 4.63 μm for Omnicam, and 52.57 ± 4.65 μm for CS 3600 (p >0,05); and those for precision were 11.7 ± 2.07 μm for Trios 3, 10.09 ± 2.24 μm for Omnicam, and 18.49 ± 2.42 μm for CS 3600 (p <0.05). Conclusions: The digital impression method is the most favorable method regarding precision; in terms of trueness, there are no differences between the types of impressions.
Books on the topic "Conventional impression"
Krakovitch, Odile. Les impressions de la Convention nationale 1792-an IV: Inventaire analytique des articles AD XVIIIc 208-357. Paris: Archives nationales, 1997.
Find full textAuyoung, Elaine. Organizing Things in Dickens. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190845476.003.0004.
Full textLenman, Bruce P. Conclusion: Servicing Early-Modern European Sovereignties. Edinburgh University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781845861209.003.0013.
Full textBouteneff, Peter C., Jeffers Engelhardt, and Robert Saler, eds. Arvo Pärt. Fordham University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823289752.001.0001.
Full textAthanassaki, Lucia, and Frances Titchener, eds. Plutarch's Cities. Oxford University Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192859914.001.0001.
Full textPenrose, Angela. No Ordinary Woman. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198753940.001.0001.
Full textBook chapters on the topic "Conventional impression"
Nguyen, Huy H., Junichi Yamagishi, and Isao Echizen. "Capsule-Forensics Networks for Deepfake Detection." In Handbook of Digital Face Manipulation and Detection, 275–301. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87664-7_13.
Full textSakurai, Yoshitaka, Rainer Knauf, Takashi Kawabe, and Setsuo Tsuruta. "Adaptive Kansei Search Method Using User’s Subjective Criterion Deviation." In Intelligent Computer Vision and Image Processing, 14–26. IGI Global, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-3906-5.ch002.
Full textBrenner, Philip S. "How Religious Identity Shapes Survey Responses." In Faithful Measures. NYU Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479875214.003.0002.
Full textChristoforou, Maria, Eftychia Xerou, and Salomi Papadima-Sophocleous. "Integrating a virtual reality application to simulate situated learning experiences in a foreign language course." In CALL and complexity – short papers from EUROCALL 2019, 82–87. Research-publishing.net, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.38.990.
Full textRowland, Daniel B. "Moscow—The Third Rome or the New Israel?" In God, Tsar, and People, 155–87. Cornell University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501752094.003.0007.
Full textThomas, Edmund. "Introduction." In Monumentality and the Roman Empire. Oxford University Press, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199288632.003.0008.
Full textThomas, Edmund. "Principles of Monumental Form in Antiquity." In Monumentality and the Roman Empire. Oxford University Press, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199288632.003.0010.
Full textStone, David. "Interpreting a Design." In European Union Design Law. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198719298.003.0009.
Full textCeluch, Krzysztof. "The Business Environment of Destination Marketing." In The Business and Management of Convention and Visitor Bureaus. Goodfellow Publishers, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.23912/9781911396796-4363.
Full textAngelika, Nussberger. "5 Judgments and Efficacy." In The European Court of Human Rights. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198849643.003.0005.
Full textConference papers on the topic "Conventional impression"
Govorko, Danijela Kalibovic, Benjamin Benzon, Antonija Jurela, Gordana Paic Karega, Ivna Vukovic Kekez, Dora Mimica, Ivana Medvedec Mikic, Livia Cigic, and Katarina Vukojevic. "Conventional vs. Digital dental impression: practitioner’s and patient’s perspective-a pilot study." In 2019 4th International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Technologies (SpliTech). IEEE, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.23919/splitech.2019.8783139.
Full textBăcilă, Bogdan Ioan, and Hyunkook Lee. "Subjective Elicitation Of Listener-Perspective-Dependent Spatial Attributes in a Rerverberant Room, using the Repertory Grid Technique." In ICAD 2019: The 25th International Conference on Auditory Display. Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom: Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Northumbria University, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.21785/icad2019.073.
Full textAkiyama, Ryo, Takuya Mori, Hideki Aoyama, and Tetsuo Oya. "Study on Method to Generate Wood Grain Pattern Representing Required Impression." In ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/detc2013-12508.
Full textWei, Xi, Vadim Utkin, Giorgio Rizzoni, and Lino Guzzella. "Model-Based Fuel Optimal Control of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Using Variable Structure Control Systems." In ASME 2004 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. ASMEDC, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/imece2004-59327.
Full textKim, Daehyeon, Youngjin Kim, Jimin Park, Hyeongrae Kim, Juyeon Kim, and Dongho Oh. "Individual Drive Cross-Coupled Control System to Compensate for Measurement Error for Roll-to-Roll Contact Pressure Uniformization." In ASME 2021 30th Conference on Information Storage and Processing Systems. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/isps2021-64689.
Full textYanagisawa, Hideyoshi, Tamotsu Murakami, Shogo Noguchi, Koichi Ohtomi, and Rika Hosaka. "Quantification Method of Diverse Kansei Quality for Emotional Design: Application of Product Sound Design." In ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. ASMEDC, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/detc2007-34627.
Full textYoshida, Hideo. "Wide Variety of Possible Applications of Micro-Thermofluid Control." In ASME 2004 2nd International Conference on Microchannels and Minichannels. ASMEDC, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/icmm2004-2327.
Full textZhang, Yang, Dong Wang, Qiang Li, Yue Shen, Ziqi Liu, Xiaodong Zeng, Zhiqiang Zhang, Jinjie Gu, and Derek F. Wong. "User Retention: A Causal Approach with Triple Task Modeling." In Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence {IJCAI-21}. California: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/468.
Full textHyde, T. H., C. J. Hyde, and W. Sun. "A Basis for Selecting the Most Appropriate Small Specimen Creep Test Type." In ASME 2012 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/pvp2012-78463.
Full textBaumann, Jenny, Ulrich Rist, Martin Rose, Tobias Ries, and Stephan Staudacher. "Actuated Transition in an LP Turbine Laminar Separation: An Experimental Approach." In ASME 2011 Turbo Expo: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition. ASMEDC, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/gt2011-45852.
Full textReports on the topic "Conventional impression"
Cajas, María Augusta, Marcela Cabrera, Jaime Astudillo, Yulissa Abad, and Daniela Astudillo. Accuracy in marginal and/or internal adaptation of full-coverage fixed prostheses made with digital versus conventional impressions: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. INPLASY - International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols, October 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2021.10.0024.
Full text