Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Dental Materials and Biomaterial Research, Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197 Berlin, Germany; Department of Dental Surgery, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Bolshaya Pirogovskaya Street, 19с1, 119146 Moscow, Russian Federation.
Section Medical Materials Science and Technology, Tübingen University Hospital, Osianderstr. 2-8, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany; ADMiRE Lab-Additive Manufacturing, Intelligent Robotics, Sensors and Engineering, School of Engineering and IT, Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, 9524 Villach.
J Dent. 2022 Feb;117:103916. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103916. Epub 2021 Dec 5.
This in vitro study compares the scanning accuracy of various stationary and portable as well as extra- and intraoral devices for capturing oncological defects.
A 3D-printed model of a nasal, orbital, and auricular defect, as well as one of an intact auricle, were digitalized (n = 7 per device) with a stationary optical scanner (Pritiface), a portable extraoral optical scanner (Artec Space Spider), two intraoral scanners (Trios 4 and Primescan), and a smartphone (iPhone 11 Pro). For the reference data, the defect models were digitalized using a laboratory scanner (D2000). For quantitative analysis, the root mean square error value for trueness and precision and mean deviations in millimeters were obtained for each defect type. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison test. For qualitative analysis, a colorimetric map was generated to display the deviation within the defect area and adjacent tissue.
Statistically significant interactions were found in the trueness and precision for defect and scanner type.
The Primescan and Artec Space Spider scanners showed the highest accuracy for most defect types. Primescan and Trios 4 failed to capture the orbital defect. The iPhone 11 Pro showed clinically acceptable trueness but inferior precision.
The scanning devices may demonstrate varying accuracy, depending on the defect type. A portable extraoral optical scanner is an universal tool for the digitization of oncological defects. Alternatively, an intraoral scanner may be employed in maxillofacial prosthetics with some restrictions. Utilizing a smartphone in maxillofacial rehabilitation should be considered with caution, because it provides inconsistent accuracy.
本体外研究比较了各种固定式和便携式以及口外和口内设备在捕获肿瘤缺损方面的扫描精度。
使用固定式光学扫描仪（Pritiface）、便携式口外光学扫描仪（Artec Space Spider）、两种口内扫描仪（Trios 4 和 Primescan）和智能手机（iPhone 11 Pro）对 1 个鼻、眶和耳缺损的 3D 打印模型以及 1 个完整耳的模型进行数字化（每种设备各 7 个样本）。对于参考数据，使用实验室扫描仪（D2000）对缺陷模型进行数字化。为了进行定量分析，获得了每个缺陷类型的准确性和精密度的均方根误差值以及毫米级的平均偏差。使用双向方差分析和 Tukey 多重比较检验对数据进行统计学分析。为了进行定性分析，生成了一个比色图来显示缺陷区域和相邻组织内的偏差。
在准确性和精密度方面，缺陷和扫描仪类型之间存在统计学显著的交互作用。
对于大多数缺陷类型，Primescan 和 Artec Space Spider 扫描仪显示出最高的准确性。Primescan 和 Trios 4 无法捕获眶部缺损。iPhone 11 Pro 显示出可接受的准确性，但精度较低。
扫描设备的准确性可能因缺陷类型而异。便携式口外光学扫描仪是数字化肿瘤缺损的通用工具。或者，可以在颌面修复中使用口内扫描仪，但存在一些限制。在颌面康复中使用智能手机应谨慎考虑，因为它提供的准确性不一致。
