González de Villaumbrosia Pablo, Martínez-Rus Francisco, García-Orejas Ana, Salido María Paz, Pradíes Guillermo
Researcher, Department of Buccofacial Prostheses, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Associate Professor, Department of Buccofacial Prostheses, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Oct;116(4):543-550.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.025. Epub 2016 Apr 23.
The fabrication of prosthetic restorations using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) procedures depends on scanning surfaces. However, limited information is available regarding the effect of extraoral scanning systems on the accuracy of the fabrication process.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) and resolution of 6 CAD-CAM extraoral scanners by comparing features and scan technology.
A master die was fabricated to simulate a dental preparation. The die was measured with a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) to obtain an accurate digital CAD reference model (CRM). The master die was then scanned 10 times with 3 structured light scanners, 2 laser scanners, and 1 contact scanner. The resulting laboratory scan data (LSD) were converted to a stereolithography (STL) format. The discrepancies between measurements were compared 3-dimensionally and at 3 selected areas of a virtual sagittal cut using CAD software. The Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance was first performed to compare scanners and then to group data according to scanner type. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to test the association between resolution and all other variables (α=.05).
For all 6 scanners, the mean resolution value was 133.9 (SD 93.9) points/mm. The value for trueness was 38.8 (SD 6.2) μm and for precision 45.5 (SD 4.8) μm. Trueness values were 20.3 μm (SD 32.7) at the axial surfaces, 46.6 μm (SD 25.9) at the margin of the preparation, and 55.8 μm (SD 29.3) at the center of the occlusal groove. The ZENO Scan was the most accurate and precise of the 6 scanners for most of the variables measured.
The reliability of CAD-CAM scanners is not affected by a specific technology (light, laser, or contact) but by definite parameters. In addition, the entire scanning procedure is more accurate if the scanned surfaces are smooth and regular.
使用计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD-CAM)程序制作修复体取决于扫描表面。然而,关于口外扫描系统对制作过程准确性的影响,现有信息有限。
本体外研究的目的是通过比较特征和扫描技术,评估和比较6种CAD-CAM口外扫描仪的准确性(真实性和精确性)及分辨率。
制作一个母模以模拟牙体预备。用坐标测量机(CMM)测量该母模以获得精确的数字CAD参考模型(CRM)。然后用3种结构光扫描仪、2种激光扫描仪和1种接触式扫描仪对母模进行10次扫描。将所得的实验室扫描数据(LSD)转换为立体光刻(STL)格式。使用CAD软件在三维空间以及虚拟矢状切面的3个选定区域比较测量值之间的差异。首先进行Kruskal-Wallis单因素方差分析以比较扫描仪,然后根据扫描仪类型对数据进行分组。使用Spearman等级相关系数检验分辨率与所有其他变量之间的相关性(α = 0.05)。
对于所有6种扫描仪,平均分辨率值为133.9(标准差93.9)点/毫米。真实性值为38.8(标准差 6.2)微米,精确性值为45.5(标准差4.8)微米。在轴面,真实性值为20.3微米(标准差32.7),在预备边缘为46.6微米(标准差25.9),在咬合沟中心为55.8微米(标准差29.3)。对于大多数测量变量,ZENO Scan是6种扫描仪中最准确和精确的。
CAD-CAM扫描仪的可靠性不受特定技术(光、激光或接触)的影响,而是受确定参数的影响。此外,如果扫描表面光滑且规则,整个扫描过程会更准确。