Suppr超能文献

传统和数字工作流程所制作模型的准确性:定性与定量分析。

Accuracy of casts produced from conventional and digital workflows: A qualitative and quantitative analyses.

作者信息

Abduo Jaafar

机构信息

Restorative Section, Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

J Adv Prosthodont. 2019 Apr;11(2):138-146. doi: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.138. Epub 2019 Apr 26.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Comparing the accuracy of casts produced from digital workflow to that of casts produced from conventional techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Whole arch alginate (ALG) and polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions were taken with stock trays and custom trays, respectively. The ALG impressions were poured with type III dental stone, while the PVS impressions were poured with type IV dental stone. For the digital workflow, IOS impressions were taken and physical casts were produced by 3D printing. In addition, 3D printed casts were produced from images obtained from a laboratory scanner (LS). For each technique, a total of 10 casts were produced. The accuracies of the whole arch and separated teeth were virtually quantified.

RESULTS

Whole arch cast accuracy was more superior for PVS followed by LS, ALG, and IOS. The PVS and ALG groups were inferior in the areas more susceptible to impression material distortion, such as fossae and undercut regions. The LS casts appeared to have generalized errors of minor magnitude influencing primarily the posterior teeth. The IOS casts were considerably more affected at the posterior region. On the contrary, the IOS and LS casts were more superior for single tooth accuracy followed by PVS and ALG.

CONCLUSION

For whole arch accuracy, casts produced from IOS were inferior to those produced from PVS and ALG. The inferior outcome of IOS appears to be related to the span of scanning. For single tooth accuracy, IOS showed superior accuracy compared to conventional impressions.

摘要

目的

比较数字化工作流程制作的模型与传统技术制作的模型的准确性。

材料与方法

分别使用标准托盘和定制托盘获取全牙弓藻酸盐(ALG)和聚乙烯基硅氧烷(PVS)印模。ALG印模用III型牙科石膏灌注,而PVS印模用IV型牙科石膏灌注。对于数字化工作流程,采用口腔内扫描仪(IOS)获取印模,并通过3D打印制作实体模型。此外,还从实验室扫描仪(LS)获取的图像制作3D打印模型。每种技术共制作10个模型。对全牙弓和分离牙齿的准确性进行虚拟量化。

结果

全牙弓模型准确性方面,PVS模型最佳,其次是LS、ALG和IOS模型。PVS和ALG组在更易受印模材料变形影响的区域(如窝沟和倒凹区域)表现较差。LS模型存在主要影响后牙的轻微一般性误差。IOS模型在后部区域受影响更大。相反,在单颗牙齿准确性方面,IOS和LS模型优于PVS和ALG模型。

结论

在全牙弓准确性方面,IOS制作的模型不如PVS和ALG制作的模型。IOS的较差结果似乎与扫描范围有关。在单颗牙齿准确性方面,IOS显示出比传统印模更高的准确性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6fc0/6491364/279216561a45/jap-11-138-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验