Assistant Professor, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University, College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Dec;120(6):895-903.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.035. Epub 2018 Jul 10.
Different intraoral scanners (IOSs) are available for digital dentistry. However, information on the accuracy of various IOSs for complete-arch digital scans is limited.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of complete-arch digital scans produced by 9 IOSs, using the superimposition method, and to compare them based on characteristics including the data capture principle and mode and the need for powder coating.
Nine IOSs were used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) data for a bimaxillary complete-arch model with various cavity preparations (N=10). The scanning performance was evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively. For quantitative evaluation, the images were processed and analyzed using 3-dimensional (3D) analysis software. After we superimposed the datasets, trueness was obtained by comparing it with the reference scan, and precision was obtained from intragroup comparisons. The IOSs were compared based on the data capture principle and mode and the need for powder coating. Statistical analyses were conducted using a Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by multiple Mann-Whitney U tests for pairwise comparisons among groups (α=.05). For qualitative evaluation, surface smoothness and sharp edge reproducibility of the digital images were compared.
The median precision values were lowest in the TRIOS model (average, 34.70 μm; maximum, 263.55 μm) and highest in the E4D model (average, 357.05 μm; maximum 2309.45 μm). Median average trueness values were lowest in the TRIOS model (42.30 μm) and highest in the Zfx IntraScan model (153.80 μm). The CS 3500 model had the lowest median maximum trueness values (450.75 μm); the E4D model had the highest values (2680.55 μm). Individual image and video sequence data captures showed similar median average trueness values (P>.05); the median maximum values of individual images were higher than those of the video sequence (P<.05). Swept source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) exhibited higher trueness values than those of other scanning principles (P<.05). The FastScan and True Definition, which require powder coating, showed significantly better trueness than other IOSs that did not require powdering (P<.05). The E4D, PlanScan, and Zfx IntraScan models had an increased tendency to produce images with imperfect surface features and to round off sharp edges.
The E4D and Zfx IntraScan models did not perform as accurately as the other IOSs. The data capture principle of SS-OCT and the mode of individual image acquisition exhibited inferior trueness. The FastScan and True Definition, which require powder coating, exhibited better trueness. The qualitative aspects of the IOSs varied in terms of polygon shapes, sharp edge reproducibility, and surface smoothness.
数字化牙科有多种不同的口内扫描仪(IOS)可供选择。然而,有关各种 IOS 进行全牙弓数字化扫描的准确性的信息有限。
本体外研究的目的是使用叠加法评估 9 种 IOS 进行全牙弓数字化扫描的准确性和精密度,并根据数据采集原理和模式以及是否需要粉末涂层等特征对其进行比较。
使用 9 种 IOS 对具有不同腔室准备的双颌全牙弓模型(N=10)获得标准三角测量语言(STL)数据。对扫描性能进行定量和定性评估。对于定量评估,使用三维(3D)分析软件对图像进行处理和分析。在叠加数据集后,通过与参考扫描进行比较获得准确性,通过组内比较获得精密度。根据数据采集原理和模式以及是否需要粉末涂层对 IOS 进行比较。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验进行统计分析,然后进行多个组间比较的多重曼-惠特尼 U 检验(α=0.05)。定性评估方面,比较数字图像的表面光滑度和锐利边缘的可重复性。
TRIOS 模型的中位精度值最低(平均 34.70 μm;最大 263.55 μm),E4D 模型的精度值最高(平均 357.05 μm;最大 2309.45 μm)。TRIOS 模型的中位平均准确性值最低(42.30 μm),Zfx IntraScan 模型的准确性值最高(153.80 μm)。CS 3500 模型的中位最大准确性值最低(450.75 μm);E4D 模型的准确性值最高(2680.55 μm)。个体图像和视频序列数据采集显示出相似的中位平均准确性值(P>.05);个体图像的中位最大准确性值高于视频序列(P<.05)。扫频源光学相干断层扫描(SS-OCT)的准确性值高于其他扫描原理(P<.05)。需要粉末涂层的 FastScan 和 True Definition 比其他不需要粉末涂层的 IOS 具有更好的准确性(P<.05)。E4D、PlanScan 和 Zfx IntraScan 模型在生成具有不完美表面特征和变圆锐利边缘的图像方面有更好的表现。
E4D 和 Zfx IntraScan 模型的准确性不如其他 IOS。SS-OCT 的数据采集原理和个体图像采集模式的准确性较低。需要粉末涂层的 FastScan 和 True Definition 具有更好的准确性。IOS 的定性方面在多边形形状、锐利边缘的可重复性和表面光滑度方面有所不同。