Xiao N, Sun Y C, Zhao Y J, Wang Y
Center of Digital Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020 Feb 18;52(1):144-151. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.01.023.
To analyze the distribution and area of occlusal contacts of clinical dental model using three kinds of digital analysis methods, to compare the results of these methods and traditional occlusal analysis method, and to further analyze the characteristics of each digital analysis method.
A set of plaster models of normal subjects was selected. The models were scanned by lab scanner 3shape E4 and the files were exported in a stereolithography file format. In 3D analysis software Geomagic Studio 2013 and Geomagic Qualify 2013, the corresponding results of 3D occlusal contact distribution and occlusal contact area were obtained through three digital analysis methods: "3D color difference map method", "point cloud analysis method", and "virtual articulating paper method". The occlusal contact distribution and occlusal contact area were also obtained by two traditional occlusal analysis methods: "silicone interocclusal recording material method" and "scanned articulating paper mark method". A threshold of 100 μm was used to analyze the occlusal contacts and 100 μm was also the thickness of articulating paper used in this study. The results of these five different occlusal analysis methods were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively.
The results of 3D occlusal contact distribution obtained by the above five methods were basically consistent. The total occlusal contact area obtained by 3D color difference map method, point cloud analysis method, virtual articulating paper method, silicone interocclusal recording material method and scanned articulating paper mark method were 133.10 mm², 142.08 mm², 128.95 mm², 163.31 mm², and 100.55 mm² respectively. There was little difference between the results of three digital analysis methods. The results of occlusal contact area obtained by the digital methods and the traditional methods were different.
The three digital analysis methods can provide reliable and accurate analysis results of occlusal contact distribution and occlusal contact area of dental model. The results obtained by these methods can serve as references for the digital occlusal surface design of dental prosthesis and clinical occlusal analysis.
采用三种数字分析方法分析临床牙模型的咬合接触分布及面积，比较这些方法与传统咬合分析方法的结果，并进一步分析各数字分析方法的特点。
选取一组正常受试者的石膏模型。用3shape E4实验室扫描仪对模型进行扫描，并以立体光刻文件格式导出文件。在3D分析软件Geomagic Studio 2013和Geomagic Qualify 2013中，通过“3D色差图法”“点云分析法”和“虚拟咬合纸法”三种数字分析方法获得3D咬合接触分布及咬合接触面积的相应结果。还通过“硅橡胶咬合记录材料法”和“扫描咬合纸标记法”两种传统咬合分析方法获得咬合接触分布及咬合接触面积。采用100μm的阈值分析咬合接触，本研究中使用的咬合纸厚度也是100μm。对这五种不同咬合分析方法的结果进行定性和定量评估。
上述五种方法获得的3D咬合接触分布结果基本一致。“3D色差图法”“点云分析法”“虚拟咬合纸法”“硅橡胶咬合记录材料法”和“扫描咬合纸标记法”获得的总咬合接触面积分别为133.10mm²、142.08mm²、128.95mm²、163.31mm²和100.55mm²。三种数字分析方法的结果差异不大。数字方法和传统方法获得的咬合接触面积结果不同。
三种数字分析方法能够为牙模型的咬合接触分布及咬合接触面积提供可靠、准确的分析结果。这些方法获得的结果可为义齿数字咬合面设计及临床咬合分析提供参考。
