Fluxo digital de trabalho na reabilitação oral com inlay de cerâmica feldspática reforçada por leucita

Referências

1. Moörmann WH. The evolution of the Cerec system. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137(suppl.):7-13.
2. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C et al. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners.
3. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63(4):396-403.
4. Kravitz ND, Groth C, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR. Intraoral digital scanners. J Clin Orthod JCO 2014;48(6):337-47.
5. Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P, Jeannin C, Pradelle N, Seux D et al. Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations: a systematic review of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(4):590-7.
6. Fan J, Xu Y, Si L, Li X, Fu B, Hannig M. Long-term clinical performance of composite resin or ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oper Dent 2021;46(1):25-44.
7. D’Arcangelo C, Zarow M, De Angelis F, Vadini M, Paolantonio M, Giannoni M et al. Five-year retrospective clinical study of indirect composite restorations luted with a light-cured composite in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18(2):615-24.
8. Rapone B, Palmisano C, Ferrara E, di Venere D, Albanese G, Corsalini M. The accuracy of three intraoral scanners in the oral environment with and without saliva: a comparative study. Appl Sci 2020;10(21):7762.
9. Chen Y, Zhai Z, Li H, Yamada S, Matsuoka T, Ono S et al. Influence of liquid on the tooth surface on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2022;31(1):59-64.
10. Camcı H, Salmanpour F. Effect of saliva isolation and intraoral light levels on performance of intraoral scanners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158(5):759-66.
11. Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascón W, Zandinejad A,
12. Özcan M et al. Intraoral digital scans – part 1: influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124(3):372-8.
13. Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascón W, Zandinejad A,
14. Özcan M et al. Intraoral digital scans: part 2 – influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124(5):575-80.
15. Ashraf Y, Sabet A, Hamdy A, Ebeid K. Influence of preparation type and tooth geometry on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners.
16. J Prosthodont 2020;29(9):800-4.
17. Lee KC, Park SJ. Digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions in reproducing full dental arches: a comparative 3D assessment. Appl Sci 2020;10(21):7637.
18. Winkler J, Gkantidis N. Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: an in vivo analysis. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):1172.
19. Camcı H, Salmanpour F. Effect of saliva isolation and intraoral light levels on performance of intraoral scanners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158(5):759-66.
20. Vág J, Renne W, Revell G, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Teich ST et al. The effect of software updates on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners. Quintessence Int 2021;52(7):636-44.
21. Kim RJY, Benic GI, Park JM. Trueness of ten intraoral scanners in determining the positions of simulated implant scan bodies. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):2606.
22. Nagy Z, Simon B, Mennito A, Evans Z, Renne W, Vág J. Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method. BMC Oral Health 2020;20(1):97.
23. Tomita Y, Uechi J, Konno M, Sasamoto S, Iijima M, Mizoguchi I. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning. Dent Mater J 2018;37(4):628-33.
24. Sagsoz O, Yildiz M, Hojjat Ghahramanzadeh ASL, Alsaran A. In vitro fracture strength and hardness of different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing inlays. Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21(3):380-7.