Kontis Panagiotis, Güth Jan-Frederik, Schubert Oliver, Keul Christine
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Ludwig-Maximilians-University München, München, Germany.
Department of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Health, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
J Adv Prosthodont. 2021 Oct;13(5):316-326. doi: 10.4047/jap.2021.13.5.316. Epub 2021 Oct 27.
Purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of different intraoral scans versus laboratory scans of impressions and casts for the digitization of an edentulous maxilla.
A PEEK model of an edentulous maxilla, featuring four hemispheres on the alveolar ridges in region 13, 17, 23 and 27, was industrially digitized to obtain a reference dataset (REF). Intraoral scans using Cerec Primescan AC (PRI) and Cerec AC Omnicam (OMN), as well as conventional impressions (scannable polyvinyl siloxane) were carried out (n = 25). Conventional impressions (E5I) and referring plaster casts were scanned with the inEOS X5 (E5M). All datasets were exported in STL and analyzed (Geomagic Qualify). Linear and angular differences were evaluated by virtually constructed measurement points in the centers of the hemispheres (P13, P17, P23, P27) and lines between the points (P17-P13, P17-P23, P17-P27). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test were performed to test for normal distribution, Kruskal-Wallis-H test, and Mann-Whitney-U test to detect significant differences in trueness, followed by 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to detect significant differences in precision ( < .008).
Group PRI showed the highest trueness in linear and angular parameters ( < .001), while group E5I showed the highest precision ( < .001).
Intraoral scan data obtained using Primescan showed the highest trueness while the indirect digitization of impressions showed the highest precision. To enhance the workflow, indirect digitization of the impression itself appears to be a reasonable technique, as it combines fast access to the digital workflow with the possibility of functional impression of mucosal areas.
本研究的目的是确定不同口腔内扫描与印模和模型的实验室扫描在无牙上颌数字化方面的准确性。
制作一个无牙上颌的聚醚醚酮（PEEK）模型，在牙槽嵴的13、17、23和27区域有四个半球形结构，通过工业数字化获得一个参考数据集（REF）。使用Cerec Primescan AC（PRI）和Cerec AC Omnicam（OMN）进行口腔内扫描，并制作传统印模（可扫描的加成型硅橡胶）（n = 25）。使用inEOS X5（E5M）扫描传统印模（E5I）和对照石膏模型。所有数据集均以STL格式导出并进行分析（Geomagic Qualify软件）。通过在半球中心（P13、P17、P23、P27）虚拟构建的测量点以及这些点之间的连线（P17 - P13、P17 - P23、P17 - P27）评估线性和角度差异。进行柯尔莫哥洛夫 - 斯米尔诺夫检验和夏皮罗 - 威尔克检验以检验正态分布，进行克鲁斯卡尔 - 沃利斯 - H检验和曼 - 惠特尼 - U检验以检测准确性的显著差异，随后进行双样本柯尔莫哥洛夫 - 斯米尔诺夫检验以检测精密度的显著差异（<0.008）。
PRI组在线性和角度参数方面显示出最高的准确性（<0.001），而E5I组显示出最高的精密度（<0.001）。
使用Primescan获得的口腔内扫描数据显示出最高的准确性，而印模的间接数字化显示出最高的精密度。为了优化工作流程，印模本身的间接数字化似乎是一种合理的技术，因为它将快速进入数字工作流程与对黏膜区域进行功能性印模的可能性结合起来。
