The Conversationalist Club, School of Stomatology, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Tai'an, Shandong 271016, China.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea.
Scanning. 2021 Jun 10;2021:5535403. doi: 10.1155/2021/5535403. eCollection 2021.
The spread and application of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology have contributed to the rapid development of digitalization in dentistry. The accuracy of scan results is closely related to the devising subsequent treatment plans and outcomes. Professional standards for evaluating scanners are specified in the American National Standard/American Dental Association Standard 132 (ANSI/ADA No. 132). The aims of this study were to use the three samples mentioned in ANSI/ADA No. 132 and evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of two extraoral scanners and an intraoral scanner based on the inspection standards recommended by ANSI/ADA No. 132. In this study, two trained operators used two extraoral scanners (E4, 3Shape, Denmark & SHINING DS100+, Shining, China) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS SERIES3, 3Shape, Denmark) to perform 30 scans of each of the three samples at a temperature of 25 ± 2°C and export standard tessellation language files and used reverse engineering software to perform measurements and iterative nearest point matching experiments. The measured values obtained were compared with the reference values measured by a coordinate measuring machine (NC8107, Leader Metrology, USA). We performed a normal distribution test (Shapiro-Wilk test), the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and an independent-samples -test to analyze the reproducibility of each scan for different models. The experimental results indicate that the trueness and precision of the two extraoral scanners and the intraoral scanner had a slight mean deviation. The trueness and precision of the three scanners on the curved surface and groove areas are poor. The accuracy and reproducibility of E4 outperformed SHINING and TRIOS. The iterative closest point matching experiment also showed good matching results. The two extraoral scanners and the intraoral scanner in this study can meet the basic clinical requirements in terms of accuracy, and we hope that digital technology will be more widely used in dentistry in the future.
计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造 (CAD/CAM) 技术的传播和应用促进了牙科数字化的快速发展。扫描结果的准确性与后续治疗计划和结果密切相关。美国国家标准/美国牙科协会标准 132 (ANSI/ADA No. 132) 规定了扫描仪的专业评估标准。本研究的目的是使用 ANSI/ADA No. 132 中提到的三个样本,根据 ANSI/ADA No. 132 推荐的检查标准,评估两种口腔外扫描仪和一种口腔内扫描仪的准确性和可重复性。在这项研究中,两名经过培训的操作人员使用两种口腔外扫描仪(E4,3Shape,丹麦和 SHINING DS100+,Shining,中国)和一种口腔内扫描仪(TRIOS SERIES3,3Shape,丹麦)对每个样本进行 30 次扫描在 25 ± 2°C 的温度下,导出标准三角测量语言文件,并使用逆向工程软件进行测量和迭代最近点匹配实验。将测量值与坐标测量机 (NC8107,Leader Metrology,USA) 测量的参考值进行比较。我们进行了正态分布检验 (Shapiro-Wilk 检验)、非参数 Kruskal-Wallis 检验和独立样本 t 检验,以分析不同模型下每次扫描的可重复性。实验结果表明,两种口腔外扫描仪和口腔内扫描仪的准确性和精度略有平均偏差。三种扫描仪在曲面和凹槽区域的准确性和精度都较差。E4 的准确性和可重复性优于 SHINING 和 TRIOS。迭代最近点匹配实验也显示出良好的匹配结果。本研究中的两种口腔外扫描仪和口腔内扫描仪在准确性方面可以满足基本的临床要求,我们希望未来数字技术将在牙科领域得到更广泛的应用。