Papaspyridakos Panos, De Souza Andre, Finkelman Matthew, Sicilia Elena, Gotsis Sotirios, Chen Yo-Wei, Vazouras Konstantinos, Chochlidakis Konstantinos
Department of Prosthodontics, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA.
Department of Prosthodontics, University of Rochester Eastman Institute for Oral Health, Rochester, NY.
J Prosthodont. 2023 Apr;32(4):325-330. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13536. Epub 2022 May 31.
There is a paucity of comparative clinical studies assessing the accuracy of full-arch digital scans versus conventional implant impressions. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the three-dimensional (3D) deviations between full-arch digital scans and conventional implant impressions for edentulous maxillae and mandibles.
Twenty-seven patients (36 edentulous jaws) were treated with one-piece, screw-retained implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs). Twenty-one jaws were maxillary, and 15 were mandibular. Full-arch conventional impressions and intraoral digital scans with scan bodies and an intraoral scanner had been taken during the impression phase. Following verification of the conventional stone casts, the casts were digitized. The generated standard tessellation language (STL) files from both impression techniques were merged and analyzed with reverse engineering software. The primary aim was to evaluate the accuracy between conventional and digital full-arch scans, while the effect of the edentulous jaw in 3D accuracy was the secondary aim.
The cumulative 3D (mean ± SD) deviations between virtual casts from intraoral full-arch digital scans and digitized stone casts generated from conventional implant impressions were found to be 88 ±24 μm. In the maxillary group, the mean ± SD 3D deviation was 85 ±25 μm, compared to 92 ±23 μm for the mandibular group (p = 0.444).
The 3D implant deviations found between the full-arch digital and conventional impressions lie within the clinically acceptable threshold. No statistically significant difference was identified between maxillary and mandibular jaws in terms of 3D deviations.
评估全牙弓数字化扫描与传统种植体印模准确性的比较临床研究较少。本回顾性研究的目的是比较无牙上颌骨和下颌骨全牙弓数字化扫描与传统种植体印模之间的三维（3D）偏差。
27例患者（36个无牙颌）接受了一体式、螺丝固位的种植体支持固定全口义齿（IFCDP）治疗。其中21个颌骨为上颌骨，15个为下颌骨。在印模阶段采集了全牙弓传统印模以及使用扫描体和口内扫描仪进行的口内数字化扫描。在验证传统石膏模型后，将模型数字化。将两种印模技术生成的标准镶嵌语言（STL）文件合并，并用逆向工程软件进行分析。主要目的是评估传统和数字化全牙弓扫描之间的准确性，而无牙颌对三维准确性的影响是次要目的。
发现口内全牙弓数字化扫描的虚拟模型与传统种植体印模生成的数字化石膏模型之间的累积三维（平均值±标准差）偏差为88±24μm。在上颌组中，平均±标准差三维偏差为85±25μm，而下颌组为92±23μm（p = 0.444）。
全牙弓数字化印模与传统印模之间发现的种植体三维偏差在临床可接受的阈值范围内。在上颌和下颌骨的三维偏差方面未发现统计学上的显著差异。
