Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administration Region, China.
Industrial Centre, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Special Administration Region, China.
J Dent. 2020 Nov;102:103476. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103476. Epub 2020 Sep 19.
To compare the accuracies of 4 laboratory scanners using a new custom-made block for complete-arch implant rehabilitation.
A block comprised 4 cylinders, with 2 in the anterior (0° angulation) and 2 in the posterior region (45° distal angulation) (Experimental group) and a standard block with 2 parallel cones in 16° taper (ISO group), were fabricated. Both blocks were scanned consecutively for 15 times by 4 laboratory scanners: IScan, Zfx, 3Shape, and KaVo. Measurements were also made by a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) as the reference. Acquired digital models were inspected with a metrology software. Linear and angular distortions were computed evaluation of trueness, precision and expanded uncertainty of scanners. Effects of blocks and scanners on the scanning trueness and precision were analyzed by Two-way ANOVA (α = 0.05).
The linear trueness and precision of scanners was significantly poorer when the Experimental block instead of ISO block was used. Significant greater distortions were noticed at the 45° sites than the 0° sites and no significant effect of inter-implant distance on the scanning accuracy was found. Zfx, IScan and 3Shape exhibited comparable expanded uncertainties (10.6∼11.8) but KaVo showed the greatest (19.3) in complete-arch implant scans.
The ISO block might not be more suitable than the Experimental block for evaluating the accuracy of laboratory scanner for complete-arch implant scanning. All the scanners tested except one demonstrated acceptable accuracy for complete-arch implant digitization. Scanning accuracy was compromised by unfavourable angulation of implants.
It is questionable whether the laboratory scanners validated for tooth-borne cases could also perform well for implant cases. It might be necessary to develop a new calibration object specifically for complete-arch implant scenarios to verify the capability of laboratory scanners in the implant workflow.
比较使用新定制的全口种植修复体扫描块的 4 种实验室扫描仪的准确性。
制作了一个包含 4 个圆柱体的块体,2 个在前部(0° 倾斜角),2 个在后部(45° 远中倾斜角)(实验组),以及一个带有 2 个在 16°锥度上的平行锥体的标准块体(ISO 组)。4 种实验室扫描仪(iScan、Zfx、3Shape 和 KaVo)连续对这两个块体进行了 15 次扫描。还使用坐标测量机(CMM)作为参考进行了测量。使用计量软件检查获得的数字模型。计算了线性和角度失真,以评估扫描仪的准确性、精度和扩展不确定度。通过双向方差分析(α=0.05)分析了块体和扫描仪对扫描准确性和精度的影响。
当使用实验组块体而不是 ISO 块体时,扫描仪的线性准确性和精度显著较差。在 45° 部位观察到的失真明显大于 0° 部位,并且在植入物之间的距离对扫描准确性没有显著影响。Zfx、iScan 和 3Shape 表现出相似的扩展不确定度(10.6∼11.8),但 KaVo 在全口种植扫描中表现出最大的(19.3)。
对于评估全口种植体扫描用实验室扫描仪的准确性,ISO 块体可能不如实验组块体更适用。除了一个之外,所有测试的扫描仪都显示出了对全口种植体数字化的可接受的准确性。扫描准确性因植入物的不利角度而受到影响。
实验室扫描仪经过验证可用于牙列病例,是否也能很好地应用于种植病例,这是值得怀疑的。可能有必要开发专门用于全口种植体扫描的新校准物体,以验证实验室扫描仪在种植体工作流程中的能力。