Int J Prosthodont. 2023 May;36(2):219-227. doi: 10.11607/ijp.7332. Epub 2023 May 24.
To determine the effect of scanning protocol, number of implants, and implant splinting on the accuracy of digital scanning in the edentulous arch.
A resin-based model of an edentulous mandible with six implants was scanned with a coordinate measurement machine as a reference and then with two intraoral scanner (IOS) systems (Trios 3 and Primescan). Ten scans were taken per IOS for three experiments, and each scan was compared to the reference data to evaluate trueness and precision. Analysis involved measurement of linear and angular discrepanices using engineering software. In experiment 1, three scanning protocols were compared (curvilinear, zigzag, and half-arch). In experiment 2, three clinical situations were simulated (6 implants, 4 implants-short arch, and 4 implants-long arch). In experiment 3, the effect of implant splinting with a suture thread was measured. Normal distribution of data was examined with Shapiro-Wilk test. Levene test was used for equality of variance (α = .05). Statistical differences in distance and angular deviations were analyzed using Student test or ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test (α = .05).
The best results in terms of trueness and precision were obtained with a linear scanning protocol and six implants. The results were as follows: Trios 3: trueness = 52 μm/0.42 degrees, precision = 40 μm/0.26 degrees; Primescan: trueness = 24 μm/0.28 degrees, precision = 18 μm/0.27 degrees. The scanning protocol did not significantly affect distance or angular deviation accuracy. Trueness and precision significantly decreased with four implants using Primescan and TRIOS 3. Splinting implants negatively affected accuracy with both IOS devices.
Both IOS devices achieved clinically satisfying accuracy for distance (< 100 μm) and angular (< 0.5 degrees) deviations with six implants and a linear scanning protocol. With four implants, angular deviations sometimes differed between implants within the same group depending on the IOS and the clinical situation. Int J Prosthodont 2023;36:219-227. doi: 10.11607/ijp.7332.
确定扫描方案、种植体数量和种植体夹板对无牙颌数字化扫描准确性的影响。
使用三坐标测量机作为参考，对带有六颗种植体的树脂基无牙颌模型进行扫描，然后使用两种口内扫描仪（Trios 3 和 Primescan）进行扫描。每个 IOS 系统进行了三次实验，每次实验进行了 10 次扫描，每次扫描均与参考数据进行比较，以评估准确性和精密度。分析使用工程软件测量线性和角度偏差。在实验 1 中，比较了三种扫描方案（曲线、锯齿形和半口）。在实验 2 中，模拟了三种临床情况（6 颗种植体、短弓 4 颗种植体和长弓 4 颗种植体）。在实验 3 中，测量了用缝线夹板固定种植体的效果。使用 Shapiro-Wilk 检验检查数据的正态分布。使用 Levene 检验检查方差的均等性（α=0.05）。使用 Student t 检验或方差分析（事后 Tukey 检验，α=0.05）分析距离和角度偏差的统计学差异。
在准确性和精密度方面，线性扫描方案和六颗种植体的效果最佳。结果如下：Trios 3：准确性=52μm/0.42°，精密度=40μm/0.26°；Primescan：准确性=24μm/0.28°，精密度=18μm/0.27°。扫描方案对距离或角度偏差的准确性没有显著影响。使用 Primescan 和 TRIOS 3 时，四颗种植体的准确性和精密度显著降低。两种 IOS 设备都发现种植体夹板会对精度产生负面影响。
两种 IOS 设备在六颗种植体和线性扫描方案下，均实现了临床可接受的距离（<100μm）和角度（<0.5°）偏差精度。四颗种植体时，根据 IOS 和临床情况，同一组内的种植体之间有时会出现角度偏差。
国际口腔修复学杂志 2023;36:219-227. doi: 10.11607/ijp.7332.
