Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Computer Science Institute, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Sep;25(9):5363-5373. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03845-4. Epub 2021 Feb 22.
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional and digital impressions based on the fit of produced three-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs) in vivo and the trueness and precision of both impression techniques.
Twelve patients received a conventional polyether impression (group C, control, n=12) and a digital impression with CS3500 (group D, test, n=12) for each participant. Monolithic multilayer zirconia FPDs were fabricated, and the internal and marginal fit were assessed using the replica technique. Trueness and precision of both impression methods were assessed in vitro. A master model was used to create a reference scan. The master model received conventional impressions (group C, control, n=5) and digital impressions (group D, test, n=5). The virtual models of both groups were superimposed over the reference scan (5 superimpositions) using a three-dimensional (3D) processing software, and the 3D deviations were measured and averaged to obtain trueness value. For precision, the virtual models of each group were superimposed over each other (10 superimpositions) and the average deviation value was calculated. The data were analyzed using one-tailed Mann-Whitney U test at P ≤ 0.05.
Group D resulted in a significantly better marginal and internal fit (30.91±15.15 and 30.86±13.57 μm for group D and 40.02±19.50 and 41.86±18.94 μm for group C). The mean values of trueness and precision for conventional and digital techniques were comparable (trueness: 62.8±5.45 and 62.72±12.01 μm and precision: 56.47±27 and 60.9±14.5 μm, respectively).
No significant difference was found between conventional and digital impressions in 3D datasets accuracy. In addition, both techniques resulted in FPDs with an acceptable clinical fit. However, the FPDs fabricated using the digital technique displayed better internal and marginal fit.
The applied impression technique as well as the computer-aided processing of the produced virtual models can significantly affect the fit of the final restoration. Direct digital impression is recommended over conventional impression for fabricating accurate monolithic zirconia 3-unit FPDs.
This clinical trial was retrospectively registered on August 11, 2020, in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry database, and the number for the registry is PACTR202008685699453.
本研究旨在比较传统和数字印模在体内制作的三单位固定局部义齿(FPD)的适合性以及两种印模技术的准确性和精度。
12 名患者分别接受了传统聚醚印模(C 组,对照组,n=12)和 CS3500 数字印模(D 组,试验组,n=12)。制作整体多层氧化锆 FPD,并使用复制技术评估内冠和边缘适合性。体外评估两种印模方法的准确性和精度。使用主模型制作参考扫描。主模型接受传统印模(C 组,对照组,n=5)和数字印模(D 组,试验组,n=5)。使用三维(3D)处理软件将两组的虚拟模型叠加在参考扫描上(5 次叠加),测量并平均 3D 偏差以获得准确性值。对于精度,将每组的虚拟模型相互叠加(10 次叠加)并计算平均偏差值。使用单侧曼-惠特尼 U 检验对 P≤0.05 时的数据进行分析。
D 组的边缘和内部适合性明显更好(D 组为 30.91±15.15μm 和 30.86±13.57μm,C 组为 40.02±19.50μm 和 41.86±18.94μm)。传统和数字技术的准确性的准确性值具有可比性(准确性:62.8±5.45μm 和 62.72±12.01μm,精度:56.47±27μm 和 60.9±14.5μm)。
在 3D 数据集准确性方面,传统印模和数字印模之间未发现显著差异。此外,两种技术均使 FPD 的临床适合性达到可接受水平。但是,使用数字技术制作的 FPD 具有更好的内部和边缘适合性。
所应用的印模技术以及所制作的虚拟模型的计算机辅助处理可以显著影响最终修复体的适合性。对于制造精确的整体氧化锆 3 单位 FPD,建议使用直接数字印模代替传统印模。
本临床试验于 2020 年 8 月 11 日在泛非临床试验注册中心数据库中进行回顾性注册,注册号为 PACTR202008685699453。