Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt.
J Prosthodont. 2022 Aug;31(7):601-605. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13457. Epub 2021 Dec 8.
The aim was to evaluate the effect of different preparation depths for inlay-retained fixed partial dentures on the accuracy of intraoral scanners.
Tooth preparations for two inlay-retained fixed partial dentures were done and divided according to depth of the preparation. Group A: 2 mm pulpal floor depth, 3 mm gingival floor depth and Group B: 3 mm pulpal floor depth, 4mm gingival floor depth. The CEREC Omnicam 4.4.4, Omnicam 4.6.2. Trios3 and Medit i500 intraoral scanners were used in this study. Tooth preparations were scanned by each scanner 10 times. The STL files obtained from the intraoral scanners were compared to the reference models (trueness) and within each test group (precision) using a 3D comparison software. Data were then statistically analyzed.
Regarding trueness, two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between the different types of scanners (p < 0.001) (Omnicam 4.4.4: 65.09 ± 2.87 Omnicam 4.6.1: 52.73 ± 3.31 Medit i500: 58.45 ± 2.63 Trios 3: 41.79 ± 4.42). Preparation depth had no significant influence on the trueness (p = 0.083). For precision two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between the different types of scanners (p < 0.001). Preparation depth had no significant influence on the precision (p = 0.111). Statistically significant interactions were found between the different variables.
The depth of preparation did not have an influence on the accuracy of different scanners. However, the type of scanner influenced the accuracy of digital impressions with Trios3 showing the highest accuracy.
评估嵌体固位固定局部义齿不同预备深度对内窥器扫描精度的影响。
对两个嵌体固位固定局部义齿的牙体预备进行了研究,并根据预备深度进行了分组。A 组:牙髓底深度 2mm,龈底深度 3mm;B 组:牙髓底深度 3mm,龈底深度 4mm。本研究使用 CEREC Omnicam 4.4.4、Omnicam 4.6.2、Trios3 和 Medit i500 口内扫描仪。每种扫描仪对牙体预备体进行 10 次扫描。使用三维比较软件将从口内扫描仪获得的 STL 文件与参考模型(准确性)和每个测试组内(精密度)进行比较。然后对数据进行统计学分析。
关于准确性,双因素方差分析显示不同类型的扫描仪之间存在显著差异(p<0.001)(Omnicam 4.4.4:65.09±2.87;Omnicam 4.6.1:52.73±3.31;Medit i500:58.45±2.63;Trios 3:41.79±4.42)。预备深度对准确性没有显著影响(p=0.083)。对于精密度,双因素方差分析显示不同类型的扫描仪之间存在显著差异(p<0.001)。预备深度对精密度没有显著影响(p=0.111)。发现不同变量之间存在显著的相互作用。
预备深度对不同扫描仪的准确性没有影响。然而,扫描仪的类型会影响数字印模的准确性,其中 Trios3 的准确性最高。