Department of Prosthodontics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Department of Prosthodontics, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA.
J Prosthodont. 2020 Mar;29(3):201-206. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13148. Epub 2020 Feb 13.
To evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) in terms of different preparation designs and scan angulation limitation due to the presence of adjacent teeth.
Eight different complete coverage (CC) and partial coverage (PC) tooth preparations were scanned by two IOS, the 3Shape TRIOS (TRI) and the 3M True Definition (TRU). All teeth preparations were scanned in the presence and absence of adjacent teeth. Four groups were established for each IOS; Group 1: PC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 2: CC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 3: PC preparations without adjacent teeth. Group 4: CC preparations without adjacent teeth. 3D analysis was performed to examine average absolute discrepancy (AAD) and maximum absolute discrepancy (MAD). A Two-way ANOVA was performed followed by a post-hoc Tukey's test HSD to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth, preparation design, and the type of IOS used.
For TRI, AAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 20 ± 1.8 µm, 19.6 ± 2.4 µm, 15.5 ± 2.7 µm, and 12.9 ± 1.4 µm, respectively, whereas MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 109.7 ± 13.5 µm, 93.2 ± 28.9 µm, 85.6 ± 16.1 µm, and 66 ± 20.1 µm, respectively. For TRU IOS, AAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 22.0 ± 3.6 µm, 17.9 ± 2 µm, 20 ± 5.9 µm, and 14.9 ± 1.7 µm, respectively, whereas the MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 151.4 ± 38.4 µm, 92.2 ± 17. µm, 92.6 ± 23.6 µm, and 71.4 ± 11.9 µm, respectively. Two-way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences between the AAD and MAD of TRI and TRU (p < 0.001). There were also statistically significant differences for presence or absence of adjacent teeth (p < 0.001), and preparation design (p < 0.001).
PC preparation scans revealed lower accuracy than CC. The presence of adjacent teeth decreased the accuracy of both IOS. TRI gave higher accuracy than TRU for PC, but both IOS showed comparable accuracy for CC groups.
评估两种口内扫描仪(IOS)在不同预备设计和因邻牙存在而导致的扫描角度限制方面的准确性。
使用两种 IOS,即 3Shape TRIOS(TRI)和 3M True Definition(TRU)扫描 8 种不同的全冠预备体(CC)和部分冠预备体(PC)。所有牙齿预备体均在有邻牙和无邻牙的情况下进行扫描。对于每种 IOS,均建立了 4 个组;组 1:有邻牙的 PC 预备体。组 2:有邻牙的 CC 预备体。组 3:无邻牙的 PC 预备体。组 4:无邻牙的 CC 预备体。进行三维分析以检查平均绝对偏差(AAD)和最大绝对偏差(MAD)。进行了双因素方差分析,然后进行了事后 Tukey's HSD 检验,以评估邻牙、预备设计和使用的 IOS 类型的影响。
对于 TRI,组 1、2、3 和 4 的 AAD 分别为 20 ± 1.8 µm、19.6 ± 2.4 µm、15.5 ± 2.7 µm 和 12.9 ± 1.4 µm,而 MAD 分别为 109.7 ± 13.5 µm、93.2 ± 28.9 µm、85.6 ± 16.1 µm 和 66 ± 20.1 µm。对于 TRU IOS,组 1、2、3 和 4 的 AAD 分别为 22.0 ± 3.6 µm、17.9 ± 2 µm、20 ± 5.9 µm 和 14.9 ± 1.7 µm,而 MAD 分别为 151.4 ± 38.4 µm、92.2 ± 17 µm、92.6 ± 23.6 µm 和 71.4 ± 11.9 µm。双因素方差分析显示,TRI 和 TRU 的 AAD 和 MAD 之间存在统计学显著差异(p < 0.001)。有邻牙和无邻牙的存在(p < 0.001)以及预备设计(p < 0.001)也存在统计学显著差异。
PC 预备体扫描的准确性低于 CC。邻牙的存在降低了两种 IOS 的准确性。PC 预备体时,TRI 的准确性高于 TRU,但 CC 组两种 IOS 的准确性相当。