Department of Orthodontics, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Feb 27;2020:2920804. doi: 10.1155/2020/2920804. eCollection 2020.
This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of scanned images of 4 clinically used intraoral scanners (CS3600, i500, Trios3, Omnicam) when scanning the surface of full arch models with various kinds of orthodontic brackets in the presence of artificial saliva. . Four study models were prepared; bonded with ceramic, metal, and resin brackets, respectively, and without brackets. Reference images were taken by scanning the models with an industrial scanner. Study models were then applied with an artificial saliva and scanned 10 times, respectively, with the above 4 intraoral scanners. All images were converted to STL file format and analyzed with 3D analysis software. By superimposing with the reference images, mean maximum discrepancy values and mean discrepancy values were collected and compared. For statistical analysis, two-way ANOVA was used.
Omnicam (1.247 ± 0.255) showed higher mean maximum discrepancy values. CS3600 (0.758 ± 0.170), Trios3 (0.854 ± 0.166), and i500 (0.975 ± 0.172) performed relatively favourably. Resin (1.119 ± 0.255) and metal (1.086 ± 0.132) brackets showed higher mean maximum discrepancy values. Nonbracket (0.776 ± 0.250) and ceramic bracket (0.853 ± 0.269) models generally showed lower mean maximum discrepancy values in studied scanners. In mean discrepancy values, the difference between scanners was not statistically significant whereas among brackets, resin bracketed models (0.093 ± 0.142) showed the highest value.
Intraoral scanners and brackets had significant influences on the scanned images with application of artificial saliva on the study models. It may be expected to have similar outcomes in an intraoral environment. Some data showed the discrepancy values up to about 1.5 mm that would require more caution in using intraoral scanners for production of detailed appliances and records.
本研究旨在评估在人工唾液存在的情况下,4 种临床应用的口内扫描仪(CS3600、i500、Trios3、Omnicam)扫描全牙弓模型表面时的准确性。制备 4 个研究模型,分别用陶瓷、金属和树脂托槽以及无托槽粘结。通过扫描模型获得参考图像。然后,将模型分别用人工唾液应用 10 次,用上述 4 种口内扫描仪进行扫描。将所有图像转换为 STL 文件格式,并使用 3D 分析软件进行分析。通过与参考图像叠加,收集并比较平均最大差异值和平均差异值。采用双因素方差分析进行统计学分析。
Omnicam(1.247±0.255)显示出更高的平均最大差异值。CS3600(0.758±0.170)、Trios3(0.854±0.166)和 i500(0.975±0.172)表现相对较好。树脂(1.119±0.255)和金属(1.086±0.132)托槽显示出更高的平均最大差异值。无托槽(0.776±0.250)和陶瓷托槽(0.853±0.269)模型在研究的扫描仪中通常显示出较低的平均最大差异值。在平均差异值方面,扫描仪之间的差异无统计学意义,而托槽之间,树脂托槽模型(0.093±0.142)显示出最高值。
在研究模型上应用人工唾液后,口内扫描仪和托槽对扫描图像有显著影响。这可能意味着在口腔内环境中也会有类似的结果。一些数据显示差异值高达约 1.5mm,这需要在使用口内扫描仪制作详细修复体和记录时更加小心。