Suppr超能文献

不同 CAD/CAM 扫描技术的口内和口外牙科扫描仪获得的数字印模的准确性评估:一项体外研究。

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained from Intraoral and Extraoral Dental Scanners with Different CAD/CAM Scanning Technologies: An In Vitro Study.

机构信息

Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

出版信息

J Prosthodont. 2022 Apr;31(4):314-319. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13400. Epub 2021 Jun 19.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of intraoral and extraoral scanners (IOSs and EOSs) with different scanning technologies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A phantom cast was used to simulate the patient's mouth. Polyether impression was made of the phantom cast and poured to fabricate stone casts. The stone casts were scanned by two IOSs (3shape Trios 3, 3S and Dental Wings, DW) and two EOSs (S600 Arti Zirkonzahn, ZK and Ceramill map 600 Amann Girrbach, AG) to obtain digital casts. Reference teeth (canines, premolar, and molars) dimensions were measured on the digital casts by Geomagic software and compared to measurements of the stone cast done by stereomicroscope. The dimensions were occluso-cervical mesio-distal, and bucco-lingual and their average was calculated. Differences between digital and stereoscopic measurements were assessed using paired t-test. Discrepancies between these measurements were calculated as differences and were compared among the four scanners using ANOVA.

RESULTS

The differences among the discrepancies of the four scanners were not significant overall (p = 0.969), in premolars (p = 0.932) or molars (p = 0.069) but significant in canines (p = 0.025). The discrepancies of the EOSs were ≤0.01 mm in canines and molars. DW had the greatest discrepancy in canines and molars.

CONCLUSIONS

The IOSs and EOSs had similar accuracy except in canines where EOSs performed better. The accuracy of scanning is affected by the smoothness and regularity of the teeth surfaces as in case of the canine.

摘要

目的

比较不同扫描技术的口内扫描仪(IOS)和口外扫描仪(EOS)的准确性。

材料与方法

使用仿体模型来模拟患者口腔。用聚醚对仿体模型进行印模制取,然后翻制石模型。使用两台 IOS(3shapeTrios3,3S 和 DentalWings,DW)和两台 EOS(S600ArtiZirkonzahn,ZK 和 Ceramillmap600AmannGirrbach,AG)对石模型进行扫描,以获得数字模型。通过 Geomagic 软件在数字模型上测量参考牙(尖牙、前磨牙和磨牙)的尺寸,并与立体显微镜对石模型的测量值进行比较。测量值为近远中向、颊舌向和牙冠长轴的平均值。使用配对 t 检验评估数字和立体测量值之间的差异。使用方差分析(ANOVA)比较这四种扫描仪之间的差异。

结果

总体而言,四种扫描仪的差异无统计学意义(p = 0.969),在前磨牙(p = 0.932)或磨牙(p = 0.069)中无统计学意义,但在尖牙(p = 0.025)中有统计学意义。EOS 的差异在尖牙和磨牙中均≤0.01mm。DW 在尖牙和磨牙中差异最大。

结论

IOS 和 EOS 的准确性相似,除了在尖牙方面,EOS 的性能更好。扫描的准确性受牙齿表面的光滑度和规则性的影响,如在尖牙的情况下。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验