Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorŞeker, Merve
dc.contributor.authorAlkan, Elif
dc.contributor.authorTağtekin, Dilek
dc.contributor.authorKorkut, Bora
dc.contributor.authorYanıkoğlu, Funda
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-28T09:39:36Z
dc.date.available2025-03-28T09:39:36Z
dc.date.issued2023en_US
dc.identifier.citationŞeker, M., Alkan, E., Tağtekin, D., Korkut, B., & Yanıkoğlu, F. Comparison of Two Different Intraoral Scanners for Determination of Caries Related Volume Loss in Caries Removal. J Dent Indones. 2023;30(2): 99-106en_US
dc.identifier.issn1693-9697
dc.identifier.issn2355-4800
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:001080804000004
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/jdi/vol30/iss2/4/
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12780/1068
dc.description.abstractObjective: The study aimed to compare cavity volume data obtained with two different intraoral scanners. Methods: One hundred extracted molar teeth were divided into groups according to ICDAS-II classification, and scanned with Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona) and iTero Element Flex (Align Technology). The caries-infected tissues were removed regarding either minimally invasive or conventional cavity principles. Samples were scanned again and volumetric data were assessed by Meshmixer 3.5 (Autodesk) 3D modeling software. Statistical evaluations were performed with Mann Whitney U test and Spearman’s Correlation test. The significance level was α=0.05. Results: Although there was a significant difference between obtained initial volume readings of two scanners for 3M and 3C groups (p < 0.05), no significant difference was observed among other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding the comparison of final volume readings of two scanners, a significant difference was found for 5M group (p = 0.036), whereas no significant difference was observed for other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Percentage of volume loss between two scanners was statistically similar (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: Data obtained with Cerec Omnicam and iTero Element Flex were compatible with volumetric assessments. Both intraoral scanners may be considered effective for calculating caries-related cavity volumes. Minimally invasive cavity principles may provide less volume loss compared to conventional cavity principles.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherJurnal Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Indonesiaen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.14693/jdi.v30i2.1430en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccessen_US
dc.subjectcavity preparationen_US
dc.subjectICDASen_US
dc.subjectminimally invasiveen_US
dc.subjectvolume lossen_US
dc.subjectintraoral scanneren_US
dc.titleComparison of two different intraoral scanners for determination of caries related volume loss in caries removalen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentİstanbul Kent Üniversitesi, Fakülteler, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Klinik Bilimler Bölümüen_US
dc.contributor.authorID0000-0001-5708-1030en_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthorYanıkoğlu, Funda
dc.identifier.volume30en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage99en_US
dc.identifier.endpage106en_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Dentistry Indonesiaen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster