Resident, Prosthodontics Department, Naval Postgraduate Dental School, Bethesda, Md.
Director of Services, 3D Medical Applications Center, Department of Radiology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md; and Assistant Professor, Naval Postgraduate Dental School, Bethesda, Md.
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Sep;120(3):382-388. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.005. Epub 2018 Apr 30.
Intraoral scanners have shown varied results in complete-arch applications.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the complete-arch accuracy of 4 intraoral scanners based on trueness and precision measurements compared with a known reference (trueness) and with each other (precision).
Four intraoral scanners were evaluated: CEREC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam, TRIOS Color, and Carestream CS 3500. A complete-arch reference cast was created and printed using a 3-dimensional dental cast printer with photopolymer resin. The reference cast was digitized using a laboratory-based white light 3-dimensional scanner. The printed reference cast was scanned 10 times with each intraoral scanner. The digital standard tessellation language (STL) files from each scanner were then registered to the reference file and compared with differences in trueness and precision using a 3-dimensional modeling software. Additionally, scanning time was recorded for each scan performed. The Wilcoxon signed rank, Kruskal-Wallis, and Dunn tests were used to detect differences for trueness, precision, and scanning time (α=.05).
Carestream CS 3500 had the lowest overall trueness and precision compared with Bluecam and TRIOS Color. The fourth scanner, Omnicam, had intermediate trueness and precision. All of the scanners tended to underestimate the size of the reference file, with exception of the Carestream CS 3500, which was more variable. Based on visual inspection of the color rendering of signed differences, the greatest amount of error tended to be in the posterior aspects of the arch, with local errors exceeding 100 μm for all scans. The single capture scanner Carestream CS 3500 had the overall longest scan times and was significantly slower than the continuous capture scanners TRIOS Color and Omnicam.
Significant differences in both trueness and precision were found among the scanners. Scan times of the continuous capture scanners were faster than the single capture scanners.
口腔内扫描仪在全弓应用中表现出不同的结果。
本体外研究的目的是通过准确性和精密度测量来评估 4 种口腔内扫描仪的全弓准确性，与已知参考值（准确性）和彼此之间（精密度）进行比较。
评估了 4 种口腔内扫描仪：CEREC Bluecam、CEREC Omnicam、TRIOS Color 和 Carestream CS 3500。使用具有光聚合树脂的三维牙科铸模打印机创建和打印全弓参考模型。使用实验室白光三维扫描仪对参考模型进行数字化。然后，使用每种口腔内扫描仪对打印的参考模型进行 10 次扫描。将来自每个扫描仪的数字标准 tessellation language（STL）文件注册到参考文件，并使用三维建模软件比较准确性和精密度的差异。此外，记录了每次扫描的扫描时间。使用 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验、Kruskal-Wallis 检验和 Dunn 检验检测准确性、精密度和扫描时间的差异（α=0.05）。
与 Bluecam 和 TRIOS Color 相比，Carestream CS 3500 的整体准确性和精密度最低。第四个扫描仪 Omnicam 的准确性和精密度处于中间水平。所有扫描仪都倾向于低估参考文件的大小，除了 Carestream CS 3500，它的变化更大。基于对差异符号颜色渲染的视觉检查，误差最大的部位通常在弓的后段，所有扫描的局部误差超过 100 μm。单次采集扫描仪 Carestream CS 3500 的整体扫描时间最长，明显比连续采集扫描仪 TRIOS Color 和 Omnicam 慢。
在扫描仪之间发现了准确性和精密度的显著差异。连续采集扫描仪的扫描时间比单次采集扫描仪快。
