Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
J Prosthodont Res. 2020 Jan;64(1):6-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.05.005. Epub 2019 Jun 18.
Intraoral scanners may offer an alternative to traditional impressions. That intraoral scanners produce precise scans is essential. Popular methods used to evaluate precision tend to rely on mean distance deviation between repeated scans. Mean value measurements may underestimate errors resulting in misleading conclusions and clinical decisions. This study investigated the precision of six intraoral scanners using the traditional method of measuring mean error, and a proposed method considering only the most extreme and clinically relevant aspects of a scan.
An edentulous model was scanned five times using six intraoral scanners. The repeated scans were aligned, uniformly trimmed and mean surface deviation measured across all 20 scan combinations within each scanner group. All scan combinations were then measured by arranging scan vertices from greatest to smallest unsigned distance from its compared scan and measuring the median value within the 1% of most greatly deviating points. Traditional mean deviation results and upper-bound deviations were compared.
The upper-bound deviation within a scan reported errors up to two times greater than those found when measuring global mean distances. Results revealed clinically relevant errors of more than 0.3mm in scans produced by the Planmeca and Dentalwings scanners, findings not seen when measuring mean distance error of the complete scan.
Upper-bound deviation of a cropped scan may provide a clinically useful metric for scanner precision. The Aadva, 3Shape, CEREC and TDS produced scans potentially appropriate for clinical use while Planmeca and Dentalwings produced deviations greater than 0.3mm when measuring the upper-bound deviation.
口内扫描仪可能提供一种替代传统印模的方法。口内扫描仪产生精确扫描至关重要。用于评估精度的常用方法往往依赖于重复扫描之间的平均距离偏差。平均值测量可能会低估误差,导致误导性的结论和临床决策。本研究使用传统的测量平均误差方法和仅考虑扫描最极端和最相关方面的建议方法,研究了六种口内扫描仪的精度。
使用六台口内扫描仪对无牙颌模型进行五次扫描。对重复扫描进行对齐、均匀修剪,并在每个扫描仪组内测量所有 20 个扫描组合的整体表面偏差。然后,通过将扫描顶点从与其比较扫描的最大无符号距离排列,并在最偏离点的 1%内测量中位数值,对所有扫描组合进行测量。比较了传统的平均偏差结果和上限偏差。
在报告扫描内的上限偏差时,发现的误差高达测量全局平均距离时的两倍。结果显示,Planmeca 和 Dentalwings 扫描仪生成的扫描中存在超过 0.3mm 的临床相关误差,而在测量完整扫描的平均距离误差时则未发现这些误差。
裁剪扫描的上限偏差可能为扫描仪精度提供一种临床有用的度量标准。Aadva、3Shape、CEREC 和 TDS 生成的扫描可能适用于临床使用,而在测量上限偏差时,Planmeca 和 Dentalwings 生成的偏差超过 0.3mm。