Digitalisierung in der Kieferorthopädie – ein kurzer Überblick

Nach dem Durcharbeiten des Artikels sollte der Leser:
▪ die Vor- und Nachteile einer konventionellen vs. digitalen Abformung kennen,
▪ die Charakteristiken und das Anwendungsspektrum der verschiedenen Intraoralscanner reflektiert haben,
▪ Auswahlentscheidungen zur Anwendung eines Intraoralscanners im kieferorthopädischen Praxisalltag treffen können und
▪ in der Lage sein, sich im Hinblick auf die stetige Entwicklung der Intraoralscanner dem digitalen Workflow in der Kieferorthopädie schneller anzupassen.

• Literatur

• 1 Mörmann WH, Brandestini M. [Cerec-System: computerized inlays, onlays and shell veneers]. Zahnarztl Mitt 1987; 77: 2400-2405
• 2 Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P. et al. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 2027-2034
• 3 Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ. et al. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization–a laboratory study. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 400-407
• 4 Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M. et al. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 1201-1208
• 5 Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P. et al. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 346-352
• 6 Czarnota J, Hey J, Fuhrmann R. Measurements using orthodontic analysis software on digital models obtained by 3D scans of plaster casts: intrarater reliability and validity. J Orofac Orthop 2016; 77: 22-30
• 7 Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B. et al. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs. digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 794-803
• 8 Garino F, Garino GB, Castroflorio T. The iTero intraoral scanner in Invisalign treatment: a two-year report. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48: 98-106
• 9 Ritter H. Digitale Scans für die Kieferorthopädie. ddm 2015; 4: 32-35
• 10 Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko CC. et al. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: a clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthetic Dent 2017;
• 11 Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T. et al. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 1495-1504
• 12 Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R. et al. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patientsʼ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14: 10
• 13 Hollenbeck K, Allin T, Van der Poel M. Streifenlicht oder Laser – Dentale 3D-Laborscanner – Wie sie funktionieren und was funktioniert am besten. In: 3Shape Technology Research. Copenhagen. 2012 Im Internet: http://www.dcd-dohrn.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/3Shape-Streifenlicht-oder-Laser-Dentale-3D-Laborscanner.pdf
• 14 Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mormann WH. et al. Intraoral scanning systems – a current overview. Int J Comput Dent 2015; 18: 101-129
• 15 Van den Bruck M, Schicker P. Welchen Scanner hättenʼs denn gern?. kfoinfo 2016; 3: 26-31
• 16 Kurz M, Attin T, Mehl A. Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 2035-2043
• 17 Joda T, Gallucci GO. The virtual patient in dental medicine. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 725-726
• 18 Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK. et al. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont 2016; 25: 282-287
• 19 Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions–an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011; 14: 11-21