Chen Yanning, Lee Jessica Ka Yi, Kwong Gordon, Pow Edmond Ho Nang, Tsoi James Kit Hon
Dental Materials Science, Applied Oral Sciences and Community Dental Care, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China; Prosthodontics, Restorative Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2022 Jul;131:105256. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105256. Epub 2022 Apr 28.
This study aimed to compare the occlusal morphology and fracture behavior of lithium disilicate ceramic dental crowns on 12 human participants' premolar #45 designed by a knowledge-based AI (CEREC, biogeneric individual function, BI) and different human personnel (experienced technician, TD, and trained dental students, AD) using CAD software. Digital datasets of crown design were best-fit aligned with the original teeth to evaluate profile and volume discrepancies of the occlusal morphology, and difference in the functional cuspal angle. Milled and sintered lithium disilicate crowns were resin-luted to 3D-printed dental casts and were subjected to axial load-to-fracture test. The fracture loads and failure modes were recorded and examined. Repeated measures ANOVA with LSD post-hoc test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Pearson's correlation coefficient, paired t-test, and chi-square exact test were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05). BI-generated crowns showed the highest occlusal profile discrepancy (0.3677 ± 0.0388 mm), whereas human-CAD designed crowns showed higher conformity to the original teeth (0.3254 ± 0.0515 mm for TD, 0.3571 ± 0.0820 for AD; z-difference method; p < 0.001). Cusp angle values were significantly different in all groups except BI and TD (54.76 ± 3.81° for the original teeth, 70.84 ± 4.31° for BI, 67.45 ± 5.30° for TD, and 62.30 ± 7.92° for AD; p < 0.001). Although all three groups of crown designs could achieve clinically acceptable fracture resistance (1556.09 ± 525.68 N for BI, 1486.00 ± 520.08 N for TD, 1425.77 ± 433.34 for AD; p = 0.505) such that no significant difference in fracture strength was found, most crowns presented catastrophic bulk fracture that was not clinically restorable because of the substrate fracture. Group BI had a significantly higher percentage of restorable substrate damage than TD (p = 0.014) and AD (p < 0.001). In conclusion, in designing lithium disilicate dental crown, CAD design with human may be better than knowledge-based AI.
本研究旨在比较基于知识的人工智能(CEREC,生物通用个体功能,BI)以及不同人员(经验丰富的技师,TD,和经过培训的牙科学生,AD)使用CAD软件为12名人类受试者的45号前磨牙设计的二硅酸锂陶瓷牙冠的咬合形态和断裂行为。牙冠设计的数字数据集与原始牙齿进行最佳拟合对齐,以评估咬合形态的轮廓和体积差异,以及功能尖牙角度的差异。将铣削和烧结的二硅酸锂牙冠用树脂粘结到3D打印的牙模上,并进行轴向加载至断裂测试。记录并检查断裂载荷和失效模式。使用重复测量方差分析及LSD事后检验、Kruskal-Wallis检验、Pearson相关系数、配对t检验和卡方精确检验进行统计分析(α = 0.05)。BI生成的牙冠显示出最高的咬合轮廓差异(0.3677±0.0388毫米),而人工CAD设计的牙冠与原始牙齿的贴合度更高(TD为0.3254±0.0515毫米,AD为0.3571±0.0820毫米;z差异法;p < 0.001)。除BI和TD组外,所有组的尖牙角度值均有显著差异(原始牙齿为54.76±3.81°,BI为70.84±4.31°,TD为67.45±5.30°,AD为62.30±7.92°;p < 0.001)。尽管三组牙冠设计均能达到临床上可接受的抗断裂性(BI为1556.09±525.68牛,TD为1486.00±520.08牛,AD为1425.77±433.34牛;p = 0.505),即未发现断裂强度有显著差异,但大多数牙冠呈现灾难性的大块断裂,由于基底断裂而无法在临床上修复。BI组可修复的基底损伤百分比显著高于TD组(p = 0.014)和AD组(p < 0.001)。总之,在设计二硅酸锂牙冠时,人工CAD设计可能优于基于知识的人工智能。