Schlenz Maximiliane Amelie, Stillersfeld Julian Maximilian, Wöstmann Bernd, Schmidt Alexander
Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2022 Jun 28;11(13):3723. doi: 10.3390/jcm11133723.
To update the available literature on the accuracy of conventional and digital full-arch impressions using the latest hardware and software, participants of different age groups and dental status were investigated. An established reference aid-based method was applied to analyze five intraoral scanners (IOS) CS 3800 (CS), iTero Element 5D (IT), Medit i700 (ME), Primescan (PS), and Trios 4 (TR), and one conventional polyether impression (CVI). Forty-five participants were classified into three groups: Age 27.3 ± 2.7 years fully dentate, 60.6 ± 8.1 years fully dentate, and 65.7 ± 6.2 years partially edentulous. The IOS datasets were investigated using three-dimensional software (GOM Inspect), and plaster casts of CVI were analyzed using a co-ordinate measurement machine. The deviations of the reference aid to impressions were determined. No significant differences in age between the three groups were observed by the IOS in terms of trueness (p < 0.05). These findings were confirmed for precision, except for TR. In contrast to CS (mean ± standard deviation 98.9 ± 62.1 µm) and IT (89.0 ± 91.0 µm), TR (58.3 ± 66.8 µm), ME (57.9 ± 66.7 µm), and PS (55.5 ± 48.7 µm) did not show significant differences than those of CVI (34.8 ± 29.6 µm) in overall view. Within the study, the latest IOSs still showed limitations in the accuracy of full-arch impressions. However, they seemed to be unaffected by age and fully dentate or partially edentulous dentitions with small gaps.
为了利用最新的硬件和软件更新有关传统全牙弓印模和数字全牙弓印模准确性的现有文献，对不同年龄组和牙齿状况的参与者进行了调查。采用一种既定的基于参考辅助工具的方法，对五款口腔内扫描仪（IOS）CS 3800（CS）、iTero Element 5D（IT）、Medit i700（ME）、Primescan（PS）和Trios 4（TR）以及一款传统聚醚印模（CVI）进行分析。45名参与者被分为三组：年龄27.3±2.7岁的全口牙列完整者、年龄60.6±8.1岁的全口牙列完整者以及年龄65.7±6.2岁的部分牙列缺失者。使用三维软件（GOM Inspect）对IOS数据集进行研究，并使用坐标测量机对CVI的石膏模型进行分析。确定参考辅助工具与印模之间的偏差。IOS在准确性方面，三组之间年龄无显著差异（p<0.05）。除TR外，这些结果在精密度方面得到了证实（准确性方面）。与CS（平均值±标准差98.9±62.1µm）和IT（89.0±91.0µm）相比，TR（58.3±66.8µm）、ME（57.9±66.7µm）和PS（55.5±48.7µm）总体上与CVI（34.8±29.6µm）相比无显著差异。在该研究中，最新的IOS在全牙弓印模准确性方面仍存在局限性。然而，它们似乎不受年龄以及全口或部分牙列缺失且间隙较小的影响。
