Int J Comput Dent. 2022 Jul 19;25(2):173-180. doi: 10.3290/j.ijcd.b2588175. Epub 2022 Jan 21.
The accuracy and reproducibility of occlusal contact points visualized by articulating foil (AF) were investigated and then compared with those calculated by three different intraoral scanners (IOSs).
Occlusal contact points were visualized on a standardized resin dental tooth model using AF 50 times in maximum intercuspation and with a constant biting force. The occlusal contact points were photographed from a vertical position above the model and superimposed on a screen to test the reproducibility of the model. This was followed by 50-fold repetition by scans and computation of the occlusal contact points by three different IOSs: CS 3600 (CS ScanFlow v.1, 4th version), Trios 3 (Basic 2019), and Cerec Omnicam (software version 5.1). The results of the computation were captured with screenshots and were then overlaid with the photographs of the AF. The image overlays were classified into five categories: 1 = total overlapping of contact points, 2 = partial overlapping of contact points, 3 = adjacent contact points without overlapping, 4 = contact points identified only by AF, 5 = contact points identified only by IOS. All data were statistically evaluated (95% confidence interval).
In total, the visualization of the occlusal contact points by the IOSs were significantly less accurate and less reproducible compared with the AF (P < 0.05). When sensitivity and accuracy were combined, the Trios 3 (3Shape) showed significantly better results than the other IOSs tested (P < 0.05).
In vitro, AF displayed a significantly more accurate visualization of the occlusal contact points than the IOSs.
研究并比较了在最大咬合状态下使用 50 次articulating foil（AF）和三种不同的口内扫描仪（IOS）计算出的咬合接触点的准确性和可重复性。
在标准化的树脂牙模型上，使用 AF 在最大咬合状态下 50 次以恒定的咬合力可视化咬合接触点。从模型上方的垂直位置拍摄咬合接触点的照片，并将其叠加在屏幕上，以测试模型的可重复性。然后，通过扫描和三种不同的 IOS（CS 3600（CS ScanFlow v.1，第 4 版）、Trios 3（Basic 2019）和 Cerec Omnicam（软件版本 5.1）计算 50 次咬合接触点。计算结果用屏幕截图捕获，然后与 AF 的照片叠加。图像叠加分为五类：1=接触点完全重叠，2=接触点部分重叠，3=无重叠的相邻接触点，4=仅通过 AF 识别的接触点，5=仅通过 IOS 识别的接触点。所有数据均进行了统计学评估（95%置信区间）。
与 AF 相比，IOS 对咬合接触点的可视化明显准确性较低，可重复性也较低（P<0.05）。当灵敏度和准确性相结合时，Trios 3（3Shape）的结果明显优于其他测试的 IOS（P<0.05）。
在体外，AF 对咬合接触点的可视化明显比 IOS 更准确。
