Chin J Dent Res. 2022 Sep 14;25(3):215-222. doi: 10.3290/j.cjdr.b3317959.
To evaluate the accuracy of 10 intraoral scanners for single-crown and three-unit preparation models.
A maxillary partially edentulous model was fabricated. A dental cast scanner was used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) data. Ten intraoral scanners, namely Trios 2 (TR2; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), True Definition (TD; 3M, Saint Paul, MN, USA), CEREC AC Omnicam (OM; Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), Organical Scan Oral (OS; R+K, Berlin, Germany), PlanScan (PS; Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland), DWIOP (DW; Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada), Xianlin (XL; Hangzhou Xianlin, Hangzhou, China), DL-100 (DL; Guangzhou Longcheng, Guangzhou, China), Trios 3 (TR3; 3Shape) and i500 (MD; MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea) were used to obtain stereolithography data as test groups. Trueness, precision and surface accuracy were evaluated by deviation analysis using 3D image processing software. One tooth with a three-unit preparation for each test group was registered with the reference scan data, and the absolute distance from another tooth was calculated as the absolute accuracy. The data were analysed using a Mann-Whitney U test and Dunn-Bonferroni test (α = 0.05).
The best trueness, precision and surface accuracy of scanning single crown preparation were recorded with TD (trueness 2.9 μm and precision 1.9 μm) and XL (surface accuracy 20.3 ± 2.9 μm). The best trueness, precision, surface accuracy and absolute accuracy of three-unit preparations were recorded with TD (2.6 μm), XL (1.9 μm), OM (27.1 ± 5.2 μm) and TR3 (79.2 ± 19.6 μm), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in trueness between single- and multiple-unit preparations for any of the intraoral scanners (P > 0.05). A statistically significant difference in the surface accuracy between single and multiple preparations was found for TR2, TD, OM, DW, XL, DL and MD (P < 0.05).
The trueness and precision of intraoral scanners for scanning three-unit preparations were nearly the same as those for single-crown preparations; however, with the exception of OS, PS and TR3, the surface accuracy of single-crown preparations was significantly better than that for three-unit preparations.
评估 10 种口内扫描仪用于单冠和三单位预备模型的准确性。
制作上颌部分缺牙模型。使用牙科石膏扫描仪获取标准三角网格语言 (STL) 数据。使用 10 种口内扫描仪，即 Trio 2（TR2；3Shape，哥本哈根，丹麦）、True Definition（TD；3M，圣保罗，MN，美国）、CEREC AC Omnicam（OM；登士柏西诺德，夏洛特，NC，美国）、Organical Scan Oral（OS；R+K，柏林，德国）、PlanScan（PS；普兰梅卡，赫尔辛基，芬兰）、DWIOP（DW；Dental Wings，蒙特利尔，加拿大）、仙林（XL；杭州仙林，杭州，中国）、DL-100（DL；广州龙城，广州，中国）、Trio 3（TR3；3Shape）和 i500（MD；MEDIT，首尔，韩国）获取立体光刻数据作为实验组。使用三维图像处理软件通过偏差分析评估准确性、精密度和表面精度。将每组的一个具有三单位预备的牙齿与参考扫描数据进行注册，并计算另一颗牙齿的绝对距离作为绝对准确性。使用曼-惠特尼 U 检验和邓恩-邦弗伦尼检验（α=0.05）进行数据分析。
TD（准确性 2.9 μm，精密度 1.9 μm）和 XL（表面精度 20.3±2.9 μm）记录了单冠预备扫描的最佳准确性、精密度和表面精度。TD（2.6 μm）、XL（1.9 μm）、OM（27.1±5.2 μm）和 TR3（79.2±19.6 μm）记录了三单位预备的最佳准确性、精密度、表面精度和绝对准确性。任何一种口内扫描仪的单冠和多单位预备之间的准确性均无统计学差异（P>0.05）。TR2、TD、OM、DW、XL、DL 和 MD 之间的单冠和多单位预备之间的表面精度存在统计学差异（P<0.05）。
三单位预备的口内扫描仪的准确性和精密度与单冠预备几乎相同；然而，除了 OS、PS 和 TR3 之外，单冠预备的表面精度明显优于三单位预备。
