Suppr超能文献

一种在 6 种植体模型上评估 4 种口腔内光学扫描仪精度的体外 3D 研究。

An in vitro 3D evaluation of the accuracy of 4 intraoral optical scanners on a 6-implant model.

机构信息

Graduate student, Advanced Education Program in Prosthodontics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, N.Y.

Professor Emeritus, New York University, New York, N.Y.

出版信息

J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Dec;124(6):748-754. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.013. Epub 2020 Feb 7.

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Although numerous studies have been performed on the accuracy of intraoral scanners, determining the clinical significance of the results is problematic.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of 4 intraoral optical scanners (IOSs) on a 6-implant model and provide a method to help determine clinical significance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A polymer mandibular edentulous model with 6 hexagonal scan bodies (Ritter) was fabricated, and a control scan was made by using an industrial laser line probe (FARO Edge HD Arm). Four IOSs (True Definition, TRIOS, CEREC Omnicam, Emerald Scanner) were used to scan the same model 5 times: the 20 standard tessellation language (STL) files were individually imported to a 3D inspection software program (Geomagic Control X) and superimposed over the computer-aided design (CAD) control scan. The tolerance was set at a limit of ±0.01 mm.

RESULTS

None of the tested scanners were true even 10% of the time at the ±0.01-mm tolerance, and the Emerald scanner was true less than 5% of the time. Within scanners, results were precise, showing variations of no more than 2% over repeated scans. When a ±0.05-mm tolerance was selected, the percentage within tolerance increased dramatically. This made the performance of the scanners to appear better but obscured valuable information. The 3D color map was the best method for understanding the data. The color maps showed how much was within tolerance and, equally important, the amount and direction of out of tolerance, providing an easily understandable qualitative and quantitative image.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistical or clinical differences were found among the scanners tested. The 3D map was the best method for observing the data.

摘要

问题陈述

尽管已经有许多研究针对口腔内扫描仪的准确性进行了研究,但确定结果的临床意义是有问题的。

目的

本体外研究的目的是评估 4 种口腔内光学扫描仪(IOS)在 6 种植体模型上的准确性和精密度,并提供一种帮助确定临床意义的方法。

材料和方法

制作了一个带有 6 个六棱柱扫描体的聚合物下颌无牙模型(Ritter),并使用工业激光线探头(FARO Edge HD Arm)进行了对照扫描。使用 4 种 IOS(True Definition、TRIOS、CEREC Omnicam、Emerald Scanner)对同一模型进行了 5 次扫描:将 20 个标准三角测量语言(STL)文件分别导入 3D 检测软件程序(Geomagic Control X),并与 CAD 控制扫描进行叠加。公差设置为±0.01mm。

结果

在±0.01mm 的公差下,没有一个测试的扫描仪能有 10%的时间是准确的,而 Emerald 扫描仪的准确时间不到 5%。在扫描仪内部,结果是精确的,在重复扫描时变化不超过 2%。当选择±0.05mm 的公差时,在公差内的百分比会显著增加。这使得扫描仪的性能看起来更好,但掩盖了有价值的信息。3D 彩色地图是理解数据的最佳方法。彩色地图显示了有多少在公差内,同样重要的是,超出公差的数量和方向,提供了一个易于理解的定性和定量图像。

结论

在所测试的扫描仪之间没有发现统计学或临床差异。3D 地图是观察数据的最佳方法。

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