Mangano Francesco, Lerner Henriette, Margiani Bidzina, Solop Ivan, Latuta Nadezhda, Admakin Oleg
Private Practice, Gravedona, 22015 Como, Italy.
Department of Prevention and Communal Dentistry, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119991 Moscow, Russia.
J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 9;9(7):2174. doi: 10.3390/jcm9072174.
To compare the reliability of five different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in the capture of implant scanbodies (SBs) and to verify the dimensional congruence between the meshes (MEs) of the SBs and the corresponding library file (LF).
A gypsum cast of a fully edentulous maxilla with six implant analogues and SBs screwed on was scanned with five different IOSs (PRIMESCAN, CS 3700, MEDIT i-500, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D, and Emerald S). Ten scans were taken for each IOS. The resulting MEs were imported to reverse engineering software for 3D analysis, consisting of the superimposition of the SB LF onto each SB ME. Then, a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the deviations between MEs and LF was performed. A careful statistical analysis was performed.
PRIMESCAN showed the highest congruence between SB MEs and LF, with the lowest mean absolute deviation (25.5 ± 5.0 μm), immediately followed by CS 3700 (27.0 ± 4.3 μm); the difference between them was not significant ( = 0.1235). PRIMESCAN showed a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500 (29.8 ± 4.8 μm, < 0.0001), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D (34.2 ± 9.3 μm, < 0.0001), and Emerald S (38.3 ± 7.8 μm, < 0.0001). CS 3700 had a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500 ( = 0.0004), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D ( < 0.0001), and Emerald S ( < 0.0001). Significant differences were also found between MEDIT i-500 and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D ( < 0.0001), MEDIT i-500 and Emerald S ( < 0.0001), and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D and Emerald S ( < 0.0001). Significant differences were found among different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. The deviations of the IOSs showed different directions and patterns. With PRIMESCAN, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D, and Emerald S, the MEs were included inside the LF; with CS 3700, the LF was included in the MEs. MEDIT i-500 showed interpolation between the MEs and LF, with no clear direction for the deviation.
Statistically different levels of congruence were found between the SB MEs and the corresponding LF when using different IOSs. Significant differences were also found between different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. Finally, the qualitative evaluation revealed different directions and patterns for the five IOSs.
比较五种不同口腔内扫描仪（IOS）在获取种植体扫描体（SB）时的可靠性，并验证SB的网格模型（ME）与相应库文件（LF）之间的尺寸一致性。
使用五种不同的IOS（PRIMESCAN、CS 3700、MEDIT i-500、ITERO ELEMENTS 5D和Emerald S）对一个带有六个种植体代型且已拧上SB的无牙上颌石膏模型进行扫描。每种IOS进行十次扫描。将所得的ME导入逆向工程软件进行三维分析，包括将SB的LF叠加到每个SB的ME上。然后，对ME和LF之间的偏差进行定量和定性评估。进行了仔细的统计分析。
PRIMESCAN显示SB的ME与LF之间的一致性最高，平均绝对偏差最低（25.5±5.0μm），紧随其后的是CS 3700（27.0±4.3μm）；两者之间的差异不显著（P = 0.1235）。PRIMESCAN显示出比MEDIT i-500（29.8±4.8μm，P < 0.0001）、ITERO ELEMENTS 5D（34.2±9.3μm，P < 0.0001）和Emerald S（38.3±7.8μm，P < 0.0001）显著更高的一致性。CS 3700比MEDIT i-500（P = 0.0004）、ITERO ELEMENTS 5D（P < 0.0001）和Emerald S（P < 0.0001）具有显著更高的一致性。在MEDIT i-500与ITERO ELEMENTS 5D（P < 0.0001）、MEDIT i-500与Emerald S（P < 0.0001）以及ITERO ELEMENTS 5D与Emerald S（P < 0.0001）之间也发现了显著差异。当使用相同的IOS扫描不同的SB时，发现了显著差异。IOS的偏差显示出不同的方向和模式。使用PRIMESCAN、ITERO ELEMENTS 5D和Emerald S时，ME包含在LF内；使用CS 3700时，LF包含在ME内。MEDIT i-500显示ME和LF之间存在插值，偏差没有明确方向。
使用不同的IOS时，在SB的ME与相应的LF之间发现了统计学上不同水平的一致性。当使用相同的IOS扫描不同的SB时，也发现了显著差异。最后，定性评估揭示了五种IOS的不同方向和模式。
