Chew Amelia A, Esguerra Roxanna J, Teoh K H, Wong K M, Ng Simon D, Tan Keson B
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Jan/Feb;32(1):70-80. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4942. Epub 2016 Oct 5.
To compare the three-dimensional (3D) accuracy of conventional direct implant impressions with digital implant impressions from three intraoral scanners, as well as different implant levels-bone level (BL) and tissue level (TL).
Two-implant master models were used to simulate a threeunit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Conventional test models were made with direct impression copings and polyether impressions. Scan bodies were hand-tightened onto master models and scanned with the three scanners. This was done for the TL and BL test groups, for a total of eight test groups (n = 5 each). A coordinate measuring machine measured linear distortions (dx, dy, dz), global linear distortion (dR), angular distortions (dθy, dθx), and absolute angular distortions (Absdθy, Absdθx) between the master models, test models, and .stl files of the digital scans.
The mean dR ranged from 35 to 66 μm; mean dθy angular distortions ranged from -0.186 to 0.315 degrees; and mean dθx angular distortions ranged from -0.206 to 0.164 degrees. Two-way analysis of variance showed that the impression type had a significant effect on dx, dz, and Absdθy, and the implant level had a significant effect on dx and Absdθx (P < .05). Among the BL groups, the mean dR of the conventional group was lower than and significantly different from the digital test groups (P = .010), while among the TL groups, there was no statistically significant difference (P = .572).
The 3D accuracy of implant impressions varied according to the impression technique and implant level. For BL test groups, the conventional impression group had significantly lower distortion than the digital impression groups. Among the digital test groups, the TR system had comparable mean linear and absolute angular distortions to the other two systems but exhibited the smallest standard deviations.
比较传统直接种植体印模与来自三种口腔内扫描仪的数字种植体印模在三维(3D)精度方面的差异,以及不同种植体水平——骨水平(BL)和软组织水平(TL)的差异。
使用双种植体主模型模拟三单位种植体支持的固定义齿。传统测试模型采用直接印模帽和聚醚印模制作。将扫描体手动拧紧在主模型上,并用三种扫描仪进行扫描。对TL和BL测试组均进行此操作,共八个测试组(每组n = 5)。使用坐标测量机测量主模型、测试模型和数字扫描的.stl文件之间的线性畸变(dx、dy、dz)、整体线性畸变(dR)、角度畸变(dθy、dθx)以及绝对角度畸变(Absdθy、Absdθx)。
平均dR范围为35至66μm;平均dθy角度畸变范围为 -0.186至0.315度;平均dθx角度畸变范围为 -0.206至0.164度。双向方差分析表明,印模类型对dx、dz和Absdθy有显著影响,种植体水平对dx和Absdθx有显著影响(P <.05)。在BL组中,传统组的平均dR低于数字测试组且差异有统计学意义(P =.010),而在TL组中,差异无统计学意义(P =.572)。
种植体印模的3D精度因印模技术和种植体水平而异。对于BL测试组,传统印模组的畸变明显低于数字印模组。在数字测试组中,TR系统的平均线性和绝对角度畸变与其他两个系统相当,但标准差最小。