Ryakhovskiy A N, Kostyukova V V
Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery Moscow, Moscow, Russia.
Stomatologiia (Mosk). 2016;95(5):39-46. doi: 10.17116/stomat201695539-46.
The aim of the study was to compare accuracy of digital impression's finishing line and the zone under it taken by different intraoral scanning systems. Parameters of comparison were: different level of the finishing line to the gingiva and width of sulcus after retraction. For this purpose two synthetic jaw models with prepared teeth were scanned using intraoral scanning systems: 3D Progress (MHT S.P.A., IT - MHT Optic Research AG, CH); True Definition (3M ESPE, USA); Trios (3Shape A/S, DNK); CEREC AC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam (Sirona Dental System GmbH, DE); Planscan (Planmeca, FIN) (each n=10). Reference-scanning was done by ATOS Core (GOM mbH, DE). The resulting digital impressions were superimposed with the master-scan. The lowest measured deviations (trueness) for intraoral scanners, where the finishing line was 0.5 mm above gingiva were with scanner True Definition - 18.8±6.63 (on the finishing line) and 51.0±14.33 µm (0.3 mm under the finishing line). In conditions where finishing line was on the same level with gingiva, scanner Trios showed the best results: 17.0±3.96 and 52.7±6.52 µm. When the finishing line was 0.5 mm under gingiva, none of the testing scanners could visualize the zone 0.3 mm lower the finishing line. The best results for accuracy o the finishing line in that circumstances showed Trios: 15.1±5.05 µm. The optimum visualization of the finishing line and the zone under it was reached when the sulcus was 0.3 mm after retraction. Thus, the best accuracy was obtained with Trios: 10.3±2.69 (on the finishing line) and 57.2±13.58 µm (0.3 mm under finishing line). The results show that intraoral scanners also provide enough accuracy for indicating finishing line and the zone under it in different conditions of preparation and gingiva retraction. However, not all of the testing scanners can properly indicate finishing line and the zone under it when shoulder is below gingiva and the width of sulcus is less than 0.2 mm.
本研究的目的是比较不同口腔内扫描系统获取的数字印模的龈缘线及其下方区域的准确性。比较参数为:龈缘线相对于牙龈的不同高度以及排龈后龈沟宽度。为此,使用口腔内扫描系统对两个带有预备牙的合成颌模型进行扫描:3D Progress(MHT S.P.A.,意大利 - MHT Optic Research AG,瑞士);True Definition(3M ESPE,美国);Trios(3Shape A/S,丹麦);CEREC AC Bluecam、CEREC Omnicam(Sirona Dental System GmbH,德国);Planscan(Planmeca,芬兰)(每组n = 10)。通过ATOS Core(GOM mbH,德国)进行参考扫描。将所得数字印模与主扫描进行叠加。对于龈缘线位于牙龈上方0.5 mm的口腔内扫描仪,测量到的最低偏差(准确性)方面,True Definition扫描仪表现最佳——在龈缘线上为18.8±6.63 µm,在龈缘线下方0.3 mm处为51.0±14.33 µm。在龈缘线与牙龈处于同一水平的情况下,Trios扫描仪显示出最佳结果:17.0±3.96 µm和52.7±6.52 µm。当龈缘线位于牙龈下方0.5 mm时,没有一台测试扫描仪能够显示龈缘线下方0.3 mm的区域。在这种情况下,Trios扫描仪在龈缘线准确性方面表现最佳:15.1±5.05 µm。当龈沟在排龈后为0.3 mm时,龈缘线及其下方区域达到了最佳可视化效果。因此,Trios扫描仪获得了最佳准确性:在龈缘线上为10.3±2.69 µm,在龈缘线下方0.3 mm处为57.2±13.58 µm。结果表明,口腔内扫描仪在不同的预备和龈退缩条件下,也能提供足够的准确性来指示龈缘线及其下方区域。然而,当肩台位于牙龈下方且龈沟宽度小于0.2 mm时,并非所有测试扫描仪都能正确指示龈缘线及其下方区域。