Suppr超能文献

口腔内和口腔外数字印模的比较评估:一项研究。

A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An study.

作者信息

Sason Gursharan Kaur, Mistry Gaurang, Tabassum Rubina, Shetty Omkar

机构信息

Department of Prosthodontics, Dr. D.Y Patil Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

出版信息

J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018 Apr-Jun;18(2):108-116. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_224_17.

Abstract

AIM

The accuracy of a dental impression is determined by two factors: "trueness" and "precision." The scanners used in dentistry are relatively new in market, and very few studies have compared the "precision" and "trueness" of intraoral scanner with the extraoral scanner. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten dentulous participants (male/female) aged 18-45 years with an asymptomatic endodontically treated mandibular first molars with adjacent teeth present were selected for this study. The prepared test tooth was measured using a digital Vernier caliper to obtain reference datasets. The tooth was then scanned using the intraoral scanner, and the extraoral scans were obtained using the casts made from the impressions. The datasets were divided into four groups and then statistically analyzed. The test tooth preparation was done, and dimples were made using a round diamond point on the bucco-occlusal, mesio-occlusal, disto-occlusal, and linguo-occlusal lines angles, and these were used to obtain reference datasets intraorally using a digital Vernier caliper. The test tooth was then scanned with the IO scanner (CS 3500, Carestream dental) thrice and also impressions were made using addition silicone impression material (3M™ ESPE) and dental casts were poured in Type IV dental stone (Kalrock-Kalabhai Karson India Pvt. Ltd., India) which were later scanned with the EO scanner (LAVA™ Scan ST Design system [3M™ ESPE]) thrice. The Datasets obtained from Intraoral and Extraoral scanner were exported to Dental Wings software and readings were obtained. Repeated measures ANOVA test was used to compare differences between the groups and independent -test for comparison between the readings of intraoral and extraoral scanner. Least significant difference test was used for comparison between reference datasets with intraoral and extraoral scanner, respectively. A level of statistical significance of < 0.05 was set.

RESULTS

The precision values ranged from 20.7 to 33.35 μm for intraoral scanner and 19.5 to 37 μm for extraoral scanner. The mean deviations for intraoral scanner were 19.6 μm mesiodistally (MD) and 16.4 μm buccolingually (BL) and 24.0 μm MD and 22.5 μm BL for extraoral scanner. The mean values of the intraoral scanner (413 μm) for trueness were closest to the actual measurements (459 μm) than the extraoral scanner (396 μm).

CONCLUSION

The intraoral scanner showed higher "precision" and "trueness" values when compared with the extraoral scanner.

摘要

目的

牙印模的准确性由两个因素决定:“精度”和“准确度”。牙科中使用的扫描仪在市场上相对较新,很少有研究比较口内扫描仪与口外扫描仪的“精度”和“准确度”。本研究的目的是评估和比较口内和口外数字印模的准确性。

材料与方法

本研究选取了10名年龄在18 - 45岁之间、下颌第一磨牙无症状且已进行牙髓治疗且邻牙存在的有牙参与者(男/女)。使用数字游标卡尺测量准备好的测试牙齿以获得参考数据集。然后使用口内扫描仪对牙齿进行扫描,并使用从印模制作的模型获得口外扫描图像。数据集被分为四组,然后进行统计分析。进行测试牙齿预备,使用圆形金刚砂车针在颊合、近中合、远中合和舌合线角处制作凹坑,并用数字游标卡尺在口内获得参考数据集。然后用口内扫描仪(CS 3500,Carestream牙科)对测试牙齿扫描三次,同时使用加成型硅橡胶印模材料(3M™ ESPE)制取印模,并将牙科模型灌注到IV型牙科石膏(Kalrock - Kalabhai Karson印度私人有限公司,印度)中,随后用口外扫描仪(LAVA™ Scan ST设计系统[3M™ ESPE])对模型扫描三次。将从口内和口外扫描仪获得的数据集导出到Dental Wings软件中并获取读数。采用重复测量方差分析检验比较组间差异,采用独立样本t检验比较口内和口外扫描仪读数之间的差异。分别使用最小显著差异检验比较口内和口外扫描仪与参考数据集之间的差异。设定统计学显著性水平为<0.05。

结果

口内扫描仪的精度值范围为20.7至33.35μm,口外扫描仪的精度值范围为19.5至37μm。口内扫描仪近远中向(MD)的平均偏差为19.6μm,颊舌向(BL)为16.4μm;口外扫描仪MD为24.0μm,BL为22.5μm。口内扫描仪的准确度平均值(413μm)比口外扫描仪(396μm)更接近实际测量值(459μm)。

结论

与口外扫描仪相比,口内扫描仪显示出更高的“精度”和“准确度”值。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bcf2/5903173/a069dcabeb51/JIPS-18-108-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验