Prosthodontic Resident, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand.
Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand.
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Jan;131(1):155-162. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.12.026. Epub 2022 Mar 4.
The accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanners and complete arch scans remains controversial.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of 3 intraoral scanners with various scan patterns.
Four standard metal spheres were installed on a dental maxillary cast according to American National Standard/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) specification no. 132. Six distances among the center of spheres were measured with a coordinate measuring machine and used as references. Four different scanning patterns were assigned: zigzag, occlusal-palatal-buccal, occlusal-buccal-palatal, and molar-to-canine. Dental Wings and TRIOS 3 applied to the first 3 scan patterns, while True Definition applied to all patterns (n=30). Six distances in the scan files were also measured and calculated for relative errors of trueness and precision. A ratio less than 0.0025 was considered acceptable and used for binary outcome analysis. Differences among scanners and scan patterns in terms of trueness and precision were analyzed with the chi-squared test, Fisher exact test, and logistic regression (α=.05).
The zigzag scan pattern from TRIOS 3 and the occlusal-buccal-palatal pattern from True Definition exhibited 100% acceptable precision. TRIOS 3 revealed the highest number of acceptable trueness values in the occlusal-palatal-buccal scan (88.3%). The scan patterns from Dental Wings and TRIOS 3 were related to the trueness. TRIOS 3 and True Definition were 12.8 and 6.4 times more likely to obtain acceptable trueness than Dental Wings (P<.001). The zigzag scan pattern had the highest chance of obtaining acceptable trueness.
The scan patterns influenced the trueness and precision of the intraoral scanners in different ways. For the best trueness, TRIOS 3 should be applied with an occlusal-palatal-buccal scan pattern, Dental Wings should be applied with a zigzag scan pattern, while True Definition can be used with any scan pattern.
口腔内扫描仪和全牙弓扫描的准确性（准确性和精密度）仍存在争议。
本体外研究的目的是比较三种不同扫描模式的口腔内扫描仪的准确性和精密度。
根据美国国家标准/美国牙科协会（ANSI/ADA）规范 No.132，将四个标准金属球安装在牙科上颌模型上。使用坐标测量机测量球心之间的六个距离，并将其作为参考。分配了四种不同的扫描模式：锯齿形、咬合-腭-颊、咬合-颊-腭和磨牙-尖牙。Dental Wings 和 TRIOS 3 应用于前三种扫描模式，而 True Definition 应用于所有模式（n=30）。在扫描文件中还测量并计算了六个距离，以计算准确性和精密度的相对误差。比值小于 0.0025 被认为是可接受的，并用于二进制结果分析。使用卡方检验、Fisher 确切检验和逻辑回归（α=.05）分析扫描仪和扫描模式在准确性和精密度方面的差异。
TRIOS 3 的锯齿形扫描模式和 True Definition 的咬合-颊-腭扫描模式均具有 100%可接受的精密度。TRIOS 3 在咬合-颊-腭扫描中显示出最高数量的可接受准确性值（88.3%）。来自 Dental Wings 和 TRIOS 3 的扫描模式与准确性有关。TRIOS 3 和 True Definition 获得可接受准确性的可能性分别是 Dental Wings 的 12.8 和 6.4 倍（P<.001）。锯齿形扫描模式获得可接受准确性的机会最高。
扫描模式以不同的方式影响口腔内扫描仪的准确性和精密度。为了获得最佳准确性，TRIOS 3 应采用咬合-腭-颊扫描模式，Dental Wings 应采用锯齿形扫描模式，而 True Definition 可以采用任何扫描模式。
