Graduate student, Advanced Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterial Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Mass.
Dental student, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Mass.
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Jan;131(1):136-143. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.03.001. Epub 2022 Apr 2.
Although average values and facebow records have been incorporated into prosthetic dentistry with much success, little is known about how using 3D facial scans for mounting compare with traditional mounting methods.
The purpose of this pilot clinical study was to determine differences in measurements among casts mounted virtually by using the average values of the Bonwill triangle and the Balkwill angle, casts mounted by using facebow records, and casts mounted from 3D facial scans.
Intraoral digital scans were obtained from each participant (n=10) and 3D printed in resin. For the facebow preservation group (FPG), a facebow record was used to mount the resin casts on a semiadjustable articulator. A desktop scanner was used to digitize this mounting while preserving the facebow record. The average mounting group (AMG) consisted of intraoral digital scans that were mounted virtually by using the concepts of the Bonwill triangle and the Balkwill angle. For the facial scan group (FSG), the participants' digitized casts were superimposed on the facial scans by using a target system. The Bergstrom point and the glabella were used to mount these casts and their associated facial scans in the digital environment. This study used the FPG as the group to compare with the other mounting techniques because of its wide acceptance in restorative dentistry. These virtual mountings were completed in a computer-aided design software program, and the distance from right and left condylar elements to the incisal embrasure between mandibular central incisors, distance from left mandibular first molar to left condylar element and from right mandibular first molar to right condylar element, and anterior and posterior recordings at 0 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm of vertical dimension increase were recorded. A Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance was performed (α=.05). The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to evaluate differences in measured values among groups, and multiple comparisons were adjusted by using Bonferroni correction.
All anterior and posterior measurements to the condylar elements of the virtual articulator were found to be significantly different (P<.05). Both anterior and posterior condylar measurements between the FPG and the AMG were found to be significantly different (P<.05), while comparisons between the FPG and the FSG were found not to be significantly different (P>.05). All changes in vertical dimension were found not to be significantly different with respect to both anterior and posterior measurements (P>.05).
When used to virtually mount dental casts, 3D facial scanners performed similarly to traditional facebow records.
尽管平均值和面弓记录已成功应用于修复牙科,但对于使用 3D 面部扫描进行修复体安装与传统安装方法相比有何不同,我们知之甚少。
本初步临床研究旨在确定通过 Bonwill 三角和 Balkwill 角的平均值虚拟安装的模型、通过面弓记录安装的模型以及通过 3D 面部扫描安装的模型之间的测量值差异。
从每位参与者(n=10)获得口内数字扫描并以树脂 3D 打印。对于面弓保存组(FPG),使用面弓记录将树脂模型安装在半可调式关节上。使用台式扫描仪在保存面弓记录的同时对这种安装进行数字化。平均安装组(AMG)由通过 Bonwill 三角和 Balkwill 角的概念虚拟安装的口内数字扫描组成。对于面部扫描组(FSG),通过目标系统将参与者的数字化模型与面部扫描叠加。使用 Bergstrom 点和眉间将这些模型及其相关的面部扫描安装在数字环境中。由于其在修复牙科中的广泛接受,本研究将 FPG 用作与其他安装技术进行比较的组。这些虚拟安装是在计算机辅助设计软件程序中完成的,并记录了从右和左髁突元素到下颌中切牙切缘之间的距离、从左侧下颌第一磨牙到左侧髁突元素的距离以及从右侧下颌第一磨牙到右侧髁突元素的距离,以及在垂直尺寸增加 0、3 和 5 毫米处的前后记录。进行了 Kruskal-Wallis 1 方式方差分析(α=.05)。进行了 Mann-Whitney U 检验来评估组间测量值的差异,并用 Bonferroni 校正调整了多重比较。
所有虚拟关节髁突元素的前后测量值均有显著差异(P<.05)。FPG 和 AMG 之间的前后髁突测量值均有显著差异(P<.05),而 FPG 和 FSG 之间的比较则无显著差异(P>.05)。所有垂直尺寸的变化在前部和后部测量值方面均无显著差异(P>.05)。
当用于虚拟安装牙模时,3D 面部扫描仪的性能与传统面弓记录相似。