Agustín-Panadero R, Ferreiroa A, Pascual-Moscardó A, Fons-Font A, Solá-Ruíz MF. In vivo evaluation of three-dimensional of volumetric changes using a CAD/CAM chair-side system: Technical procedure. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(3):e489-93.

doi:10.4317/jced.53531

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.4317/jced.53531

References

	1. Froum SJ, Weinberg MA, Rosenberg E, Tarnow D. A comparative study utilizing open flap debridement with and without enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a 12-month re-entry study. J Periodontol. 2001;72:25-34. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.1.25 PMid:11210070

	2. Murugesan K, Anandapandian PA, Sharma SK, Vasantha Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of dimension and surface detail accuracy of models produced by three different rapid prototype techniques. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2012;12:16-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-011-0103-8 PMid:23449946 PMCid:PMC3332309

	3. Tarawneh FM, Panos PG, Athanasiou AE. Three-dimensional assessment of dental casts' occlusal surfaces using two impression materials. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35:821-6 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01872.x PMid:18482343

	4. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2015;59:236-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.06.002 PMid:26211702

	5. Gao DQ, Ma JF, Lin H, Chen CQ, Yang F. Precision analysis of the surface model based on Geomagic Qualify. Appl Mech Mater. 2014;490:649-53. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.490-491.649

	6. González de Villaumbrosia P, Martínez-Rus F, García-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradíes G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:543-50.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.025 PMid:27112413

	7. Pradíes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martínez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent. 2015;43:201-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.007 PMid:25527248

	8. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:799-806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1590-5 PMid:26362778

	9. Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradíes G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:2403-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1714-6 PMid:26800669

	10. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:184-90.e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017 PMid:26946916

	11. Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann DR, Heydecke G. Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:328-35.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.028 PMid:27061627

	12. Jaschouz S, Mehl A. Reproducibility of habitual intercuspation in vivo. J Dent. 2014;42:210-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.09.010 PMid:24189225