Ender Andreas, Attin Thomas, Mehl Albert
Research Assistant, Division for Computerized Restorative Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Department Head, Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Centre of Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Mar;115(3):313-20. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011. Epub 2015 Nov 6.
Digital impression systems have undergone significant development in recent years, but few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo, particularly compared with conventional impression techniques.
The purpose of this in vivo study was to investigate the precision of conventional and digital methods for complete-arch impressions.
Complete-arch impressions were obtained using 5 conventional (polyether, POE; vinylsiloxanether, VSE; direct scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES; digitized scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES-D; and irreversible hydrocolloid, ALG) and 7 digital (CEREC Bluecam, CER; CEREC Omnicam, OC; Cadent iTero, ITE; Lava COS, LAV; Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; 3Shape Trios, TRI; and 3Shape Trios Color, TRC) techniques. Impressions were made 3 times each in 5 participants (N=15). The impressions were then compared within and between the test groups. The cast surfaces were measured point-to-point using the signed nearest neighbor method. Precision was calculated from the (90%-10%)/2 percentile value.
The precision ranged from 12.3 μm (VSE) to 167.2 μm (ALG), with the highest precision in the VSE and VSES groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly according to the impression method. Conventional impressions showed the highest accuracy across the complete dental arch in all groups, except for the ALG group.
Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the complete arch cast; however, they achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials.
近年来，数字印模系统有了显著发展，但很少有研究在体内研究该技术的准确性，尤其是与传统印模技术相比。
本体内研究的目的是调查传统和数字方法用于全牙弓印模的精度。
使用5种传统（聚醚，POE；乙烯基硅氧烷醚，VSE；直接可扫描乙烯基硅氧烷醚，VSES；数字化可扫描乙烯基硅氧烷醚，VSES-D；以及不可逆水胶体，ALG）和7种数字（CEREC Bluecam，CER；CEREC Omnicam，OC；Cadent iTero，ITE；Lava COS，LAV；Lava True Definition Scanner，T-Def；3Shape Trios，TRI；以及3Shape Trios Color，TRC）技术获取全牙弓印模。在5名参与者中每种技术各制作印模3次（N = 15）。然后在测试组内和测试组之间对印模进行比较。使用带符号最近邻法逐点测量模型表面。精度由（90% - 10%）/2百分位数计算得出。
精度范围为12.3μm（VSE）至167.2μm（ALG），VSE和VSES组的精度最高。偏差模式根据印模方法明显不同。除ALG组外，所有组中传统印模在整个牙弓上显示出最高的准确性。
传统和数字印模方法在全牙弓准确性方面有显著差异。数字印模系统在全牙弓模型内有更高的局部偏差；然而，它们比一些传统印模材料具有同等或更高的精度。
