Ren Xi, Son Keunbada, Lee Kyu-Bok
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41940, Korea.
Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai YuJia Dental Clinic, 370 Luochuan East Road, Jing'an District, Shanghai 200002, China.
Materials (Basel). 2021 May 26;14(11):2843. doi: 10.3390/ma14112843.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of the proximal and occlusal contacts of single implant crowns fabricated with four data capture methods. The resin models were mounted on an articulator, digitized using a laboratory scanner, and saved as a standard tessellation language (STL) file to serve as the master reference model (MRM). Two different intraoral scan body (ISB) systems were evaluated: polyetheretherketone (PEEK) short scan body (SSB) and PEEK long scan body (LSB) ( = 12). The digital impressions (SSB and LSB) were acquired using an intraoral scanner with ISB. Two different conventional techniques were also evaluated: PEEK short scan body with coping plastic cap (CPC) and pick-up coping (PUC) ( = 12). The implant impressions (CPC and PUC) were recorded using a conventional impression technique. The crown and abutment were fabricated with a milling machine and then placed on the resin model and scanned using a laboratory scanner. The scanned files were saved as STL files to serve as test datasets. The MRM and test datasets were superimposed, and the mesial, distal, and occlusal distances were calculated using a 3D inspection software and statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test (α = 0.05). The direct data capture group had more accurate contact points on the three surfaces, with mesial contact of 64.7 (12.8) µm followed by distal contact of 65.4 (15) µm and occlusal contact of 147 (35.8) µm in the SSB group, and mesial contact of 84.9 (22.6) µm followed by distal contact of 69.5 (19.2) µm and occlusal contact of 115.9 (27.7) µm in the LSB group ( < 0.001). The direct data capture groups are closer to the ideal proximal and occlusal contacts for single implant crowns than the indirect data capture groups. There was no difference in the accuracy between the two types of scan body (SSB and LSB).
本体外研究的目的是比较用四种数据采集方法制作的单颗种植体牙冠的近中接触和咬合接触的准确性。将树脂模型安装在牙合架上,使用实验室扫描仪进行数字化处理,并保存为标准镶嵌语言(STL)文件,作为主参考模型(MRM)。评估了两种不同的口内扫描体(ISB)系统:聚醚醚酮(PEEK)短扫描体(SSB)和PEEK长扫描体(LSB)(每组n = 12)。使用带有ISB的口内扫描仪获取数字印模(SSB和LSB)。还评估了两种不同的传统技术:带有顶盖塑料帽(CPC)的PEEK短扫描体和取模顶盖(PUC)(每组n = 12)。使用传统印模技术记录种植体印模(CPC和PUC)。用铣床制作牙冠和基台,然后将其放置在树脂模型上,并用实验室扫描仪进行扫描。扫描文件保存为STL文件,作为测试数据集。将MRM和测试数据集进行叠加,使用三维检测软件计算近中、远中及咬合距离,并采用Kruskal-Wallis H检验进行统计学分析(α = 0.05)。直接数据采集组在三个表面上的接触点更准确,SSB组的近中接触为64.7(12.8)µm,其次是远中接触为65.4(15)µm,咬合接触为147(35.8)µm;LSB组的近中接触为84.9(22.6)µm,其次是远中接触为69.5(19.2)µm,咬合接触为115.9(27.7)µm(P < 0.001)。与间接数据采集组相比,直接数据采集组的单颗种植体牙冠更接近理想的近中接触和咬合接触。两种扫描体(SSB和LSB)之间的准确性没有差异。