Lin Wei-Shao, Harris Bryan T, Elathamna Eiad N, Abdel-Azim Tamer, Morton Dean
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):102-9. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3592.
The purpose of this research was to compare the accuracy of definitive casts created with digital and conventional methods for implants with internal-octagon connections placed parallel or at different angles (15, 30, or 45 degrees).
Four customized epoxy resin master casts were fabricated with two-implant analogs placed in the posterior mandible with different degrees of divergence. For the conventional (control) group, 10 traditional impressions were taken on each master cast with custom trays, open-tray impression copings, and polyvinyl siloxane; definitive stone casts were poured with type IV dental stone. For the digital group, 10 digital impressions were taken on each master cast with two-piece scannable impression copings and an intraoral digital scanner; definitive milled polyurethane casts were fabricated by the manufacturer. All four master casts and 80 control and test casts were scanned and digitized, and the data sets were compared. Any deviations in measurements between the definitive and corresponding master casts were analyzed statistically.
The amount of divergence between implants did not affect the accuracy of the stone casts created conventionally; however, it significantly affected the accuracy of the milled casts created digitally. A decreasing linear trend in deviations for both distance and angle measurements suggested that the digital technique was more accurate when the implants diverged more. At 0 and 15 degrees of divergence, the digital method resulted in highly significantly less accurate definitive casts. At 30 and 45 degrees of divergence, however, the milled casts showed either no difference or marginal differences with casts created conventionally.
The digital pathway produced less accurate definitive casts than the conventional pathway with the tested two-implant scenarios. To ensure passive fit of definitive prostheses, verification devices and casts may be used when materials are produced digitally.
本研究的目的是比较采用数字方法和传统方法制作的最终模型的准确性,这些模型用于内部呈八角形连接且平行或呈不同角度(15度、30度或45度)放置的种植体。
制作了四个定制的环氧树脂母模,其中两个种植体模拟物放置在下颌后部,呈不同程度的发散。对于传统(对照)组,使用定制托盘、开放式托盘印模帽和聚乙烯基硅氧烷在每个母模上采集10个传统印模;用IV型牙科石膏灌注最终的石膏模型。对于数字组,使用两件式可扫描印模帽和口腔内数字扫描仪在每个母模上采集10个数字印模;由制造商制作最终的铣削聚氨酯模型。对所有四个母模以及80个对照和测试模型进行扫描和数字化处理,并比较数据集。对最终模型与相应母模之间的测量偏差进行统计学分析。
种植体之间的发散程度不影响传统方法制作的石膏模型的准确性;然而,它显著影响数字方法制作的铣削模型的准确性。距离和角度测量偏差的线性下降趋势表明,当种植体发散程度更大时,数字技术更准确。在发散0度和15度时,数字方法制作的最终模型准确性显著更低。然而,在发散30度和45度时,铣削模型与传统方法制作的模型相比,要么没有差异,要么只有微小差异。
在测试的两种种植体情况下,数字流程制作的最终模型比传统流程的准确性更低。为确保最终修复体的被动就位,在采用数字方式制作材料时,可使用验证装置和模型。