DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİNDE KULLANILAN ÖLÇÜ SİSTEMLERİNDE GÜNCEL YAKLAŞIMLAR: DİJİTAL ÖLÇÜ

Abstract

ÖZET

Sabit protetik diş tedavilerinde prepare edilen bölgenin negatifini en doğru şekilde elde etmek yapılacak olan restorasyonun başarısını doğrudan etkilemektedir. Bu nedenle preparasyon hassasiyeti kadar, kullanılan ölçü maddesi ve ölçü tekniğine de önem vermek gerekmektedir. Ölçü maddeleri yıllar içerisinde en doğru, en hassas detayı kaydedebilmek için değişimlere uğramışlardır. Yapılan çalışmalar ile boyutsal stabiliteleri, yırtılma dirençleri, biyouyum- lulukları gibi birçok fiziksel ve kimyasal özellikleri iyileştirilmeye çalışılmıştır.  Buna rağmen elde edilecek ölçü için klinisyenin becerisi, ortam şartları, ölçünün saklanma koşulları gibi sayısız dış etkenin de mevcut olduğu unutulmamalıdır.

Bilgisayar destekli dizayn ve tasarım (Computer Aided Manufacturer And Design; CAD/CAM) teknolo- jisindeki gelişmeler, bu sistemlerin diş hekimliğinde kullanımını son yıllarda önemli ölçüde artırmıştır. CAD/CAM sistemlerinde geliştirilen yenilikler arasında dijital okuma da yer almaktadır. Dijital okuma; kon- vansiyonel ölçü tekniklerinin istenmeyen özelliklerini ortadan kaldıran, hem hekim, hem de hasta için olduk- ça pratik bir ölçü alma işlemine olanak sağlamaktadır. Diş hekimliğinde piyasada bir çok firma CAD/CAM sis- temlerine ilave olarak ağız içi veya ağzı dışı tarayıcılar ekleyerek laboratuvar ve klinik ortamda oluşabilecek sorunları minimalize etmeyi hedeflemektedir.

Bu derleme,  dünden bugüne kullanılan ölçü maddelerinden bahsederek, son yıllarda popüler olan dijital ölçü teknikleri ile karşılaştırılmalı olarak değerlendirilmek ve ölçü alma işlemindeki yenilikleri geniş bir yelpazede incelemek amacı ile hazırlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: CAD/CAM, dijital ölçü,

 CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO DENTAL IMPRESSION SYSTEMS: DIGITAL IMPRESSION

ABSTRACT

The accuracy of obtaining negatives of preparation region directly affects the success of the restoration in fixed prosthetic tooth treatment. Therefore, impression materails and techniques should be taken into consideration as much as sensibility of preparation. Over the years, impressions materials have undergone change in order to provide most accurate and precise detail. Physical and chemical properties like dimensional stability, tear strength and biocompatibility have been tried to increase by conducting new studies. However, presence of numerous external factors such as ability of the clinician, environmental conditions, storage conditions of impression metarials should not be forgetten while taking an impression.

The use of Computer Aided Manufacturer And Design (CAD/CAM) technologies in dentistry are increased by the development of this systems.  Digital scanner is one of the reforms of CAD/CAM systems. Digital scanner which extinguish unwanted properties of conventional impression tecniques provides possibility of taking easy impression for dentist and patients. In dental market multiple companies aim to minimalize the problem that might happen in clinic or laboratory by adding intraoral or extraoral digital scanner to CAD/CAM systems.

The aim of this rewiev is to evaluate the populer impression tecniques, to compare them with old techniques and examine the novelty of impression in wide aspects.

Key Words: CAD/CAM, digital impression, impression techniques

Keywords

• CAD/CAM, dijital ölçü, ölçü teknikleri

CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO DENTAL IMPRESSION SYSTEMS: DIGITAL IMPRESSION

Abstract

The accuracy of obtaining negatives of preparation region directly affects the success of the restoration in fixed prosthetic tooth treatment. Therefore, impression materails and techniques should be taken into consideration as much as sensibility of preparation. Over the years, impressions materials have undergone change in order to provide most accurate and precise detail. Physical and chemical properties like dimensional stability, tear strength and biocompatibility have been tried to increase by conducting new studies. However, presence of numerous external factors such as ability of the clinician, environmental conditions, storage conditions of impression metarials should not be forgetten while taking an impression. The use of Computer Aided Manufacturer And Design (CAD/CAM) technologies in dentistry are increased by the development of this systems. Digital scanner is one of the reforms of CAD/CAM systems. Digital scanner which extinguish unwanted properties of conventional impression tecniques provides possibility of taking easy impression for dentist and patients. In dental market multiple companies aim to minimalize the problem that might happen in clinic or laboratory by adding intraoral or extraoral digital scanner to CAD/CAM systems. The aim of this rewiev is to evaluate the populer impression tecniques, to compare them with old techniques and examine the novelty of impression in wide aspects

Keywords

• CAD/CAM, digital impression, impression techniques

References

1. Zaimoğlu A, Can G. Sabit protezler. 1st ed. Ankara: 2004. p. 83-85.
2. Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB. Dental impressions using3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2008. p. 494, 496, 498-505.
3. Hamalian TA, Nasr E, Chidiac JJ. Impresion materials in fixed prosthodontics: Influnce of choice on clinical procedure. J Prosthodont 2011; 20:153-60.
4. Almeida E Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araşjo E, Stimmelmayr M, Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 2013; May 29. [Epub ahead of print].
5. Fransson B, Oilo G, Gjeitanger R. The fit of Procera titanium crowns. An in vitro and clinical study. Dent Mater 1985; 1:197-9.
6. Karlsson S. The fit of Procera titanium crowns. An in vitro and clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 1993; 51:129-34.
7. Sulaiman F, Chai J, Jameson LM, Wozniak WT. A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1997; 10:478-84.
8. Beschinidt SM, Strub JR. Evaluation of the marginal accuracy of different all-ceramic crown systems after simulation in the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26:582-93.

9. Colpani JT, Borba M, Della Bona A. Evaluation of marginal and internal fit of ceramic crown copings. Dent Mater 2013; 29:174-80.
10. Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Vult von Steyern P, Fukushşma S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32:526-30.
11. Frannsson B, Oilo G, Gjeitanger R. The fit of metal- ceramic crowns, a clinical study. Dent Mater 1985;1:197-9.
12. Nakamura T, Nonaka M, Maruyma T. In vitro fitting accuracy of copy-milled alumina cores and all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13:189-93.
13. Tuntiprawon M, Wilson PR. The effect of cement thickness on the fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Aust Dent J 1995; 10:17-21.
14. Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S. The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow--the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:2119-25.
15. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:285-91.
16. Shillingburg HT. Sabit protezin temelleri. 3rd ed. Quintessence Yayıncılık: 2012. p.281-8.
17. Christensen GJ. What category of impression material is best for your practice? J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128:1026-8.
18. Christensen GJ. The challenge to conventional impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139:347-9.
19. Touchstone A, Nieting T, Ulmer N. Digital transition: the collaboration between dentists and laboratory technicians on CAD/CAM restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2010; 141:15S-19S.
20. Mehl A, Hickel R. Current state of development and perspectives of machine based production methods for dental restorations. Int J Comput Dent 1999; 2:9-35.
21. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overwiev of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008; 201:505- 11.
22. Ersu B, Yüzügüllü B, Canay Ş. Sabit restorasyonlarda Hacettepe Diş Hek Derg 2008; 32:58-72. uygulamaları.
23. Strub JB, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restoration: current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137:1289-96.
24. Christensen GJ. Is now the time to purchase an in- office CAD/CAM device? J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137:235-8.
25. Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17:1201-8.
26. Yöndem İ, Aykent F. Bilgisayar desteği ile hazırlanan Hacattepe Diş Hek Derg 2008; 32:79-86. (CAD/CAM).
27. Aykent F, İlbay SA. İnlay ve onlay restorasyon- ların Cerec Sitemi ile tek seansta uygulanması. Diş Hekimliğinde Klinik 1993; 6:85-8.
28. Mörmann WH, Bindl A. The new creavity in ceramic Quintessence Int 1996; 27:821-8. dental CAD/CAM
29. Mörmann WH, Bindl A. All ceramic, chairside computer aided design/computer aided machining restorations. Dent Clin N Am 2002; 46: 405-26.
30. Bindl A, Mörmann WH. Clinical and SEM evaluation of all ceramic chairside CAD/CAM generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 2003;111:163-9.
31. Mörmann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137 Suppl: 7S-13S.
32. Karataşlı B, Tunç E. CEREC sisteminin gelişimi. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137: 22-31.
33. Mörmann WH, Brandestini M. The fundamental intentive principles of CEREC CAD/CAM. In Mörmann WH, state of art of CAD/CAM restorations:20 Quintessence 2006; 1-8. of CEREC. London
34. Fasbinder DJ. Predictable CEREC occlusal relationships. In Mörmann WH, state of art of CAD/CAM restorations:20 years of CEREC. London Quintessence 2006; 93-100.
35. Garvey P. The dental assistant’s role in integrating digital impression technology in dental practice. Dent Assit 2007; 76:12-4.
36. Cadent debuts ‘next generation’ iTero digital impression system. Implant Tribune, US edition 2007; 1:14.
37. Lava chairside oral scanner C.O.S 3M ESPE Technical Datasheet. http://multimedia. 3m.com/ mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=66666UgxGCuNyXT tn8T_o8TyEVtQEcuZgVs6EVs6E666666--&fn= Lava_COS_IFU_%202.0_US.pdf. Accessed 28 ocak 2014.
38. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011; 14:11-21.
39. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010; 38:553-9.
40. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger CM. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dento Facial Orthop 2013; 144:471-8.
41. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Invest 2013; 17:1759-64.