Publications by authors named "A Limones"

Purpose: To assess the impact of involuntary interruptions (simulating tracking loss by moving the scanner out of its focal distance) and voluntary interruptions (pressing the scanner's turn-on button) on the accuracy of implant-supported full-arch scans using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 5, version 22.1.10; 3Shape; Copenhagen, Denmark).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: To measure the impact of the superimposition methods on accuracy analyses in digital implant research using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software.

Materials And Methods: A six-implant edentulous maxillary model was scanned using a desktop scanner (7Series; DentalWings; Montreal, Canada) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4; 3Shape; Copenhagen, Denmark) to generate a reference and an experimental mesh, respectively. Thirty experimental standard tesselletion language (STL) files were superimposed onto the reference model's STL using the core features of six superimposition methods, creating the following groups: initial automated pre-alignment (GI), landmark-based alignment (G1), partial area-based alignment (G2), entire area-based alignment (G3), and double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire model area-based alignment (G4 ) or the scan bodies' surface (G5).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: To assess the manufacturing accuracy, intaglio surface adaptation, and survival of resin-based CAD/CAM definitive crowns created via additive manufacturing (AM) or subtractive manufacturing (SM).

Materials And Methods: A maxillary right first molar crown was digitally designed and manufactured using AM hybrid resin composite (VarseoSmile Crown Plus, Bego [AM-HRC]), AM glass filler-reinforced resin composite (Crowntec, Saremco Dental [AM-RC]), and SM polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic, VITA Zahnfabrik [SM-PICN]). Manufacturing accuracy (trueness and precision) was assessed by computing the root mean square (RMS) error (in μm; n = 15 per material).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: To measure the impact of superimposition methods and the designated comparison area on accuracy analyses of dentate models using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems; Rock Hill, South Carolina; USA).

Materials And Methods: A dentate maxillary typodont scanned with a desktop scanner (E4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 4; 3 Shape; Copenhagen; Denmark) was used as reference. Eight groups were created based on the core features of each superimposition method: landmark-based alignment (G1); partial area-based alignment (G2); entire tooth area-based alignment (G3); double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G4); double alignment combining partial area-based alignment with entire tooth area-based alignment (G5); initial automated quick pre-alignment (G6); initial automated precise pre-alignment (G7); and entire model area-based alignment (G8).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by fitting fixed or removable retainers to provide stability to the teeth while avoiding damage to teeth and gums. Removable retainers can be worn full- or part-time.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF