Ye Jiahui, Wang Shimin, Wang Zixuan, Liu Yunsong, Sun Yuchun, Ye Hongqiang, Zhou Yongsheng
Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, National Center of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease, National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China.
Dental Laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, National Center of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing, 100081, China.
Odontology. 2023 Jan;111(1):165-171. doi: 10.1007/s10266-022-00736-2. Epub 2022 Sep 7.
The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental casts from plaster cast scanning (PCS), impression scanning (IPS), intraoral scanning (IOS), and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning (CCS) methods. The maxillary and mandibular dental casts of 15 patients who needed CBCT scans for oral examination or treatment were digitized via four methods. 12 linear distance measurements of all digital dental casts were selected and acquired with software and compared to those of the reference plaster cast to evaluate the dimensional accuracy. Three-dimensional deviation analysis of the IPS, IOS and CCS groups with respect to the reference PCS group was performed to evaluate the morphological accuracy. The discrepancy in linear distances between the digital dental casts and reference plaster casts was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The dimensional accuracies of the PCS (0.06 ± 0.12 mm) and IPS (0.03 ± 0.05 mm) casts were better than those of the IOS (0.37 ± 0.30 mm) and CCS (0.54 ± 0.40 mm) casts. The one-sample t test showed that there were statistically significant differences between the discrepancies in 8 of the linear distances for the PCS group and 9 of the linear distances for the IPS group between the digital dental casts and reference plaster casts, with an ideal error of 0.00 (p < 0.05). The sequence of morphological accuracy from good to poor was maxillary and mandibular IPS, mandibular IOS; maxillary IOS; and maxillary and mandibular CCS. The accuracy of the digital dental casts from the PCS and IPS methods was greater than that of IOS and CCS methods. Although accuracy of the digital dental cast from IOS was low, it satisfied the clinical requirements for fixed restorations in small units. The accuracy of the digital dental cast from CCS was poorest and could only be used for procedures with lower accuracy requirements.
本研究的目的是比较石膏模型扫描（PCS）、印模扫描（IPS）、口内扫描（IOS）和锥束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）扫描（CCS）方法所获得的数字化牙模的准确性。对15例因口腔检查或治疗需要进行CBCT扫描的患者的上颌和下颌牙模，通过四种方法进行数字化处理。选择并使用软件获取所有数字化牙模的12项线性距离测量值，并与参考石膏模型的测量值进行比较，以评估尺寸精度。对IPS、IOS和CCS组相对于参考PCS组进行三维偏差分析，以评估形态精度。数字化牙模与参考石膏模型之间的线性距离差异具有统计学意义（p < 0.01）。PCS（0.06±0.12 mm）和IPS（0.03±0.05 mm）模型的尺寸精度优于IOS（0.37±0.30 mm）和CCS（0.54±0.40 mm）模型。单样本t检验显示，PCS组的8项线性距离差异和IPS组的9项线性距离差异在数字化牙模与参考石膏模型之间存在统计学显著差异，理想误差为0.00（p < 0.05）。形态精度从好到差的顺序为上颌和下颌IPS、下颌IOS、上颌IOS、上颌和下颌CCS。PCS和IPS方法所获得的数字化牙模的准确性高于IOS和CCS方法。虽然IOS获得的数字化牙模准确性较低，但满足小单位固定修复的临床要求。CCS获得的数字化牙模准确性最差，仅可用于精度要求较低的程序。
