The Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 May;14 Suppl 1:e175-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x. Epub 2011 Dec 15.
Comparisons between different techniques measuring fit of implant-supported frameworks are few.
The purpose of this study was to compare data on precision of fit from two highly accurate measuring techniques and, also, to compare results using software programs for fit assessments considering both a "virtual" as well as a "physical" (i.e., more clinical) situation.
Five computer numerical control-milled titanium frameworks (Procera Implant Bridge, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) were fabricated from individual model/pattern measurements, simulating a clinical situation. Measurements of fit between frameworks and models were performed by means of a coordinate measuring machine (CMM; Zeiss Prismo Vast, Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH, Oberkochen, Germany) linked to a computer and an optical, high-resolution, three-dimensional scanner (Atos 4M SO, GOM International AG, Widen, Switzerland). Collected data on distortions between frameworks and models were analyzed and compared between the two measurement techniques. A comparison between "virtual" and "physical" fit assessments was also performed, based on data from the three-dimensional scanner.
When using "virtual" fit assessment programs, overall mean three-dimensional distortion between implant and framework center points in absolute figures was 37 (SD 22) and 14 µm (SD 8) for the CMM and three-dimensional scanning measurements, respectively. Corresponding mean three-dimensional distortion when using a "physical" fit assessment program in the scanner was 43 µm (SD 24) (p < 0.001). Mean horizontal (x-axis) measurements of the distance between the two terminal implants of the models and the frameworks were 33.772 and 33.834 mm for the CMM technique. Corresponding measurements for the three-dimensional scanner was 33.798 and 33.806 mm, respectively. Horizontal distances from the three-dimensional scanner were, for most measurements, greater than for the CMM measurements.
Measurements of fit between frameworks and models may vary depending on what technique is used and how fit assessments regarding "virtual" or "physical" fit is approached.
比较不同技术测量种植体支持框架适配性的研究较少。
本研究的目的是比较两种高精度测量技术的适配精度数据，并比较使用适配评估软件程序的结果，同时考虑“虚拟”和“物理”（即更临床）情况。
从个体模型/印模测量中制造五个计算机数控（CNC）铣削钛框架（Procera 种植桥，诺贝尔生物公司，哥德堡，瑞典），模拟临床情况。通过坐标测量机（CMM；蔡司 Prismo Vast，卡尔蔡司工业测量技术有限公司，Oberkochen，德国）与计算机和光学、高分辨率、三维扫描仪（Atos 4M SO，GOM 国际股份公司，Widen，瑞士）连接，对框架与模型之间的适配进行测量。分析和比较两种测量技术之间框架和模型之间的失真数据。还基于三维扫描仪的数据，进行“虚拟”和“物理”适配评估之间的比较。
当使用“虚拟”适配评估程序时，植入物和框架中心点之间的整体三维失真绝对值分别为 37（SD 22）和 14 µm（SD 8），CMM 和三维扫描测量结果分别为 37（SD 22）和 14 µm（SD 8）。使用扫描仪中的“物理”适配评估程序时，相应的平均三维失真值为 43 µm（SD 24）（p < 0.001）。模型和框架两个末端植入物之间的水平（x 轴）距离的平均测量值，CMM 技术分别为 33.772 和 33.834 mm。对于三维扫描仪，相应的测量值分别为 33.798 和 33.806 mm。对于大多数测量值，三维扫描仪的水平距离大于 CMM 测量值。
框架与模型之间的适配测量可能因使用的技术以及如何接近“虚拟”或“物理”适配评估而有所不同。
Zotero 插件