Centre for Clinical, Oral and Translational Sciences, King's College London Faculty for Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9LU, UK; Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Dent Mater. 2019 Oct;35(10):1408-1414. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.07.023. Epub 2019 Aug 8.
The use of surface matching software with intraoral scanners is developing rapidly which increases the need for accessible, accurate and validated measurement software. This investigation compared the current gold-standard Geomagic Control software to a purpose-built software "WearCompare".
Artificially created occlusal defects of a known size were created on 10 natural molar teeth scanned with a structured-light model-scanner (Rexcan DS2, Europac 3D, Crewe). The volume change, maximum profilometric loss and mean profilometric loss were obtained from both Geomagic Control (3D Systems, Darmstadt, Germany) and WearCompare (leedsdigitaldentistry.com). Duplicated datasets were randomly repositioned and re-alignment performed. The effect of the re-alignment was calculated by analysing differences between the known defect size and defect size after re-alignment using the same measurement metrics. Lastly, clinical wear measurements were compared on natural molar surfaces (n=60) over 6 months using study models collected from a previous longitudinal trial. Data analysis was performed in SPSS v25 (paired t-tests, Pearson correlations, p<0.05).
Measurement correlation between the softwares was greater than 0.97 (p<0.001) for all measurement metrics. The volume change error (SD) after alignment was -0.67mm(1.14) for Geomagic and -0.06mm(0.93) for WearCompare (p=0.140 and r=0.065, p=0.86). Measurement errors were observed after alignment in both softwares and no statistical differences were observed between softwares. The volume change on the clinical dataset over 6 months was +0.29 mm(3.97) in Geomagic and -0.30mm(1.82) for WearCompare (p=0.19 and r=0.61, p<0.001). The mean profile gain was 42.86μm(40.19) for Geomagic and 32.17μm(23.72) for WearCompare (p=0.048). Correlations between the softwares were greater than 0.6 for all measurement metrics except for mean profile gain.
WearCompare is a comparable tool to Geomagic for quantifying erosive tooth wear. WearCompare reported statistically less profile gain indicating less error but further research is needed to reduce the human errors in both softwares.
随着口腔扫描仪表面匹配软件的快速发展，对口内扫描仪的精确测量提出了更高的要求，因此需要一种可获取、准确且经过验证的测量软件。本研究将现有的黄金标准Geomagic Control 软件与专门开发的软件“WearCompare”进行了比较。
在使用结构光模型扫描仪（Rexcan DS2，Europac 3D，Crewe）扫描的 10 颗天然磨牙上人工创建了已知尺寸的咬合缺陷。通过Geomagic Control（德国 Darmstadt 的 3D Systems）和 WearCompare（leedsdigitaldentistry.com）获得体积变化量、最大轮廓损失量和平均轮廓损失量。重复数据集随机重新定位并重新对齐。通过分析使用相同测量指标重新对齐后的已知缺陷尺寸和缺陷尺寸之间的差异，计算重新对齐的效果。最后，在 6 个月的时间里，使用来自先前纵向试验的研究模型，对 60 例天然磨牙表面的临床磨损测量值进行了比较。使用 SPSS v25 进行数据分析（配对 t 检验、皮尔逊相关，p<0.05）。
所有测量指标的软件间测量相关性均大于 0.97（p<0.001）。对齐后Geomagic 的体积变化误差（SD）为-0.67mm（1.14），WearCompare 为-0.06mm（0.93）（p=0.140，r=0.065，p=0.86）。在两种软件中均观察到对齐后的测量误差，但在软件之间未观察到统计学差异。在 6 个月的临床数据集上，Geomagic 的体积变化为+0.29mm（3.97），WearCompare 为-0.30mm（1.82）（p=0.19，r=0.61，p<0.001）。Geomagic 的平均轮廓增益为 42.86μm（40.19），WearCompare 为 32.17μm（23.72）（p=0.048）。除平均轮廓增益外，两种软件的所有测量指标的相关性均大于 0.6。
WearCompare 是一种与 Geomagic 相当的工具，可用于量化侵蚀性牙齿磨损。WearCompare 报告的轮廓增益统计上较低，表明误差较小，但需要进一步研究以减少两种软件中的人为误差。
