Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative analysis of optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and micro-computed tomography on measurements
Karam, Frederick Khalil; Zancope, Karla; Carneiro, Thiago de Almeida Prado Naves; Oliviera, Murilo Navarro de; Resende, Caio César Dias; Neves, Flávio Domingues das.
  • Karam, Frederick Khalil; Federal University of Uberlândia. School of Dentistry. Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prosthodontics and Dental Materials. Uberlândia. BR
  • Zancope, Karla; Federal University of Uberlândia. School of Dentistry. Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prosthodontics and Dental Materials. Uberlândia. BR
  • Carneiro, Thiago de Almeida Prado Naves; Federal University of Uberlândia. School of Dentistry. Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prosthodontics and Dental Materials. Uberlândia. BR
  • Oliviera, Murilo Navarro de; s.af
  • Resende, Caio César Dias; Federal University of Uberlândia. School of Dentistry. Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prosthodontics and Dental Materials. Uberlândia. BR
  • Neves, Flávio Domingues das; Federal University of Uberlândia. School of Dentistry. Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prosthodontics and Dental Materials. Uberlândia. BR
Braz. j. oral sci ; 16: e17058, jan.-dez. 2017. ilus
Article in English | LILACS, BBO | ID: biblio-883731
ABSTRACT
Abstract Microscopic measurements are widely used in scientific research and the correct equipment to perform these evaluations could be critical to determine study results. Regarding microscopic measurements, three of the most used methods are Optical Microscopy (OM), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), and Micro-computed Tomography (MCT). It is important to select the best method for assessing diverse parameters, considering operational characteristics of the method, the equipment efficiency, and the machinery cost.

Aim:

Therefore, the main objective of this study was to define which is the most useful measurement method for assessing magnitudes below 0.4 mm.

Methods:

Ten dental implants, with known dimensions as defined by the manufacturer were randomly distributed. Two blinded observers assessed the distance between the second and the third screw vortex of the implants using three suggested methods. The true distance was defined to be 0.5 mm.

Results:

The assessed distances were 0.597±0.007mm for OM, 0.578±0.017mm for SEM, and 0.613±0.006mm for MCT. The assessed distances were significantly different when the methods were compared (P>0.01). All measurements were into the CAD tolerances.

Conclusion:

It was possible to conclude that linear easurements between 595 and 605 µm could be performed by any of the described technologies (AU)
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Dental Implants / X-Ray Microtomography / Microscopy, Electrochemical, Scanning / Microscopy Language: English Journal: Braz. j. oral sci Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2017 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Federal University of Uberlândia/BR

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Dental Implants / X-Ray Microtomography / Microscopy, Electrochemical, Scanning / Microscopy Language: English Journal: Braz. j. oral sci Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2017 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Federal University of Uberlândia/BR