Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Articles
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Dental-CAD
Industrial scanner and exocad
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cadfan" data-source="post: 163914" data-attributes="member: 10618"><p>The limit from scanner side is 2.5 - 3 micron for a single shot deepened on surface ,free form scans like stumps and implant scans like scan markers are two very different things guys like horst or optimet work on implants with xml not stl and special scan markers ( true to shape and torque ) . Working on free form parts the repeatability is around 15 my but the problem on free form parts is the lateral resolution its not possible to get a margin only in Z resolution but if you measure parts like stumps you have more flat parts like occlusal area and the walls than curved like margins . I dont know any research about margin accuracy. It would be interested to see only two margin lines in such accuracy tests. their is the big advantage of push- buttons ( small cmg ) like incise or all the ex nobel scanner from renishaw but with less speed. Accuracy is always a mix off FOV accuracy and Z accuracy and matching accuracy ( photogrammetry helps ) and the algorithms that kick of lateral resolution and the point spacing on a flat surface no problem but on curves like margins a bit more helps. But all these scanned accuracy at for example a margin has his limits on the production side a 0.6 burr can only describe a curve and this relatives the scan for free form parts like bridges on stumps.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cadfan, post: 163914, member: 10618"] The limit from scanner side is 2.5 - 3 micron for a single shot deepened on surface ,free form scans like stumps and implant scans like scan markers are two very different things guys like horst or optimet work on implants with xml not stl and special scan markers ( true to shape and torque ) . Working on free form parts the repeatability is around 15 my but the problem on free form parts is the lateral resolution its not possible to get a margin only in Z resolution but if you measure parts like stumps you have more flat parts like occlusal area and the walls than curved like margins . I dont know any research about margin accuracy. It would be interested to see only two margin lines in such accuracy tests. their is the big advantage of push- buttons ( small cmg ) like incise or all the ex nobel scanner from renishaw but with less speed. Accuracy is always a mix off FOV accuracy and Z accuracy and matching accuracy ( photogrammetry helps ) and the algorithms that kick of lateral resolution and the point spacing on a flat surface no problem but on curves like margins a bit more helps. But all these scanned accuracy at for example a margin has his limits on the production side a 0.6 burr can only describe a curve and this relatives the scan for free form parts like bridges on stumps. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who makes the popular shade guide?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Dental-CAD
Industrial scanner and exocad
Top
Bottom