Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
BMC Oral Health. 2022 Dec 1;22(1):559. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02612-5.
Clinical studies comparing the accuracy of digital and conventional records for static interocclusal registration are lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this clinical study was to assess the precision of digital interocclusal registration compared to conventional registration for full arch and quadrant arch conditions.
Nine individuals with complete natural dentition were enrolled in this study. Each participant received digital scans, conventional impressions, and static interocclusal records according to the following groups: group DF, full arch digital scans and bilateral buccal scans with Medit i700 intraoral scanner (IOS); group DQ, quadrant arch digital scans and unilateral buccal scans with Medit i700 IOS; group CF, full arch polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions and PVS interocclusal records; group CQ, quadrant arch PVS impressions and PVS interocclusal records. For group CF and group CQ, the impressions were poured, mounted with the silicone bites, scanned with a laboratory scanner, and articulated virtually with buccal scans with the laboratory scanner. In each group, each participant received three interocclusal records to repeat the virtual articulation three times and the articulated models were saved as STL files. The STL files were imported into a 3D-processing software to calculate the discrepancies between repeated measures using best-fit-alignment method. The significance between the study groups was calculated with two-tailed paired t-test at P < 0.05.
For full arch, group DF showed significantly better precision with a mean value of 31 ± 19 µm compared to 204 ± 81 µm for group CF (P = 0.0003). Similarly, for quadrant arch, group DQ showed significantly better precision with a mean value of 18 ± 6 µm compared to 255 ± 136 µm for group CQ (P = 0.0009). No significant difference in precision was found between quadrant arch and full arch when the digital or the conventional method was used.
The digital approach had significantly better precision for static interocclusal registration compared to the conventional method in both full and quadrant arch situations. Trial Registry This clinical trial was registered on 06/07/2022 in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry database, the number for the registry is PACTR202207648490275.
目前缺乏比较数字化和传统记录在静态颌位关系记录方面准确性的临床研究。因此，本临床研究的目的是评估数字化颌位关系记录与传统记录在全牙弓和象限牙弓条件下的精密度。
本研究纳入了 9 名具有完整天然牙列的个体。每位参与者根据以下组别接受数字化扫描、传统印模和静态颌位记录：组 DF，全牙弓数字化扫描和 Medit i700 口内扫描仪（IOS）双侧颊侧扫描；组 DQ，象限牙弓数字化扫描和 Medit i700 IOS 单侧颊侧扫描；组 CF，全牙弓聚硅氧烷（PVS）印模和 PVS 颌位记录；组 CQ，象限牙弓 PVS 印模和 PVS 颌位记录。对于组 CF 和组 CQ，印模被灌注、硅橡胶 bites 就位、用实验室扫描仪扫描，并与实验室扫描仪的颊侧扫描虚拟咬合。在每组中，每位参与者接受三次颌位记录以重复三次虚拟咬合，然后将咬合模型保存为 STL 文件。将 STL 文件导入 3D 处理软件，使用最佳拟合对齐方法计算重复测量之间的差异。使用双侧配对 t 检验计算研究组之间的差异，P 值<0.05 有统计学意义。
对于全牙弓，组 DF 的精度明显更好，平均值为 31 ± 19 µm，而组 CF 的平均值为 204 ± 81 µm（P=0.0003）。同样，对于象限牙弓，组 DQ 的精度明显更好，平均值为 18 ± 6 µm，而组 CQ 的平均值为 255 ± 136 µm（P=0.0009）。当使用数字化或传统方法时，象限牙弓和全牙弓之间的精度没有显著差异。
数字化方法在全牙弓和象限牙弓情况下的静态颌位关系记录方面的精度明显优于传统方法。
本临床试验于 2022 年 6 月 7 日在泛非临床试验注册中心数据库中注册，注册号为 PACTR202207648490275。
