Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
J Prosthodont. 2023 Jun;32(5):423-430. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13568. Epub 2022 Aug 3.
To compare precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span scanning.
A fully dentate maxillary phantom cast was used to represent full arch scanning, and a mandibular phantom cast, including posterior 3-unit fixed partial denture preparations to represent short span scanning. Reference casts (RCs) were fabricated and scanned 10 times by a reference extraoral scanner (Medit T510, Seoul, Korea) to provide reference digital casts. RC was then scanned 10 times by 5 scanners: 2 intraoral scanners (Trios 3shape [Trios 3] and Dental Wings [DW]), and 3 extraoral scanners (3shape E3 [E3], S600 ARTI [S600], and Ceramill Map 600 [M600]). Digital standard tessellation language (STL) files obtained from the 5 scanners were sent to a stereolithography 3D printer to fabricate printed casts. Trueness was obtained by comparing STL files of each digital/printed cast to the RC, while precision was obtained by comparing the digital/printed STL file of each scanner to the other files of same digital/printed group. The lower the precision and trueness values, the higher the accuracy of casts. Multivariate analysis of variance was performed to assess the association of precision and trueness with the type of scanner, type of cast, and scanning span.
There was a significant difference in precision and trueness of casts produced from different scanners (p <0.001). The lowest precision and trueness were demonstrated by casts produced from DW. Digital casts showed significantly higher precision and trueness compared to 3D printed casts (p <0.001). Regarding the scanning span, full arch scanning showed significantly lower precision and trueness than short span scanning (p <0.001).
Extraoral scanners exhibited higher trueness and precision than intraoral scanners. Trios 3 showed comparable accuracy to that of the studied extraoral scanners in the case of short span scanning. DW was the least accurate scanner in all studied groups, while E3 showed the highest accuracy level among the mentioned scanners. Digital casts showed higher trueness and precision compared to 3D printed casts.
比较几种口内和口外扫描仪在全牙弓和短跨度扫描中生成的数字印模和印刷印模的精度和准确性。
使用全牙弓上颌模型来代表全牙弓扫描，使用下颌模型，包括后 3 单位固定局部义齿预备，代表短跨度扫描。制作参考模型（RC）并由参考口外扫描仪（韩国首尔 Medit T510）扫描 10 次，以提供参考数字模型。然后，RC 由 5 台扫描仪扫描 10 次：2 台口内扫描仪（Trios 3shape [Trios 3]和 Dental Wings [DW]）和 3 台口外扫描仪（3shape E3 [E3]、S600 ARTI [S600]和 Ceramill Map 600 [M600]）。从 5 台扫描仪获得的数字标准三角测量语言（STL）文件被发送到立体光刻 3D 打印机以制造印刷印模。通过将每个数字/印刷印模的 STL 文件与 RC 进行比较来获得准确性，而通过将每个扫描仪的数字/印刷 STL 文件与同一数字/印刷组的其他文件进行比较来获得精度。精度和准确性值越低，印模的精度越高。使用多变量方差分析评估了扫描仪类型、印模类型和扫描跨度与精度和准确性的相关性。
不同扫描仪生成的印模的精度和准确性存在显著差异（p <0.001）。DW 生成的印模精度和准确性最低。与 3D 打印印模相比，数字印模的精度和准确性明显更高（p <0.001）。关于扫描跨度，全牙弓扫描的精度和准确性明显低于短跨度扫描（p <0.001）。
口外扫描仪的准确性和精度高于口内扫描仪。在短跨度扫描中，Trios 3 与研究中的口外扫描仪具有相当的准确性。DW 是所有研究组中最不准确的扫描仪，而 E3 是所述扫描仪中准确性最高的。与 3D 打印印模相比，数字印模的准确性和精度更高。
