Dupagne Lucien, Mawussi Bernardin, Tapie Laurent, Lebon Nicolas
Prosthodontic Department, Unité de Recherche Biomatériaux Innovants et Interfaces, Université Paris Cité, Montrouge, France.
Hopital Louis Mourier, Colombes, France.
Heliyon. 2023 Jan 25;9(2):e13235. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13235. eCollection 2023 Feb.
Innovations in intraoral scanner (IOS) technology are opening up ever more indications for computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM). The manufacturers claim that the latest generations of scanners allow the digitizing of root canal preparations. However, there is a lack of studies evaluating the quality of the optical impressions made for this type of treatment.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the measurement error of 4 IOSs and a laboratory scanner used for the digitizing of root canal preparations and to highlight the effect of the presence or absence of adjacent teeth on the quality of the digital model.
Two models: one presenting adjacent teeth, one without adjacent teeth, both presenting a 10 mm deep nominal conical pit mimicking a root canal preparation were fabricated. Each model was scanned 10 times with a laboratory scanner (E3) and 4 intraoral scanners (Primescan, Omnicam, TRIOS 4, and Medit i700). The digital models were then exported as standard tessellation language (STL) files and analyzed to evaluate the mean measurement error of the digitizing of the root preparation at three different depths: 0-3 mm, 3-6 mm, and 6-9 mm. Significant differences were assessed with a 1-way ANOVA test and the pairwise comparison between scanners was done by Tukey's multiple comparison test.
Statistical differences were found between scanners ( < 0.05). The mean measurement error ranged from 9.8 ± 0.5 μm with the Medit i700 to 28.2 ± 10 μm with the E3. The E3 and Omnicam scanners were in some cases incapable of digitizing the conical preparation in its entirety. The group Primescan, TRIOS 4, and Medit i700 showed minimally significant differences. The presence of adjacent teeth had a negative effect on the model quality for some scanners, mainly because of the obstruction of the IOS's head.
Significant differences were found among the dental scanners used for digitizing root canal preparations. Optical impressions with modern intraoral scanners seem to be an adapted method of registration of root canal preparation for post-and-copings of post-and-cores fabrication.
口腔内扫描仪（IOS）技术的创新为计算机辅助设计与制造（CAD-CAM）带来了越来越多的应用指征。制造商宣称最新一代的扫描仪能够对根管预备进行数字化处理。然而，目前缺乏针对此类治疗所制作的光学印模质量的研究。
本研究旨在评估4款IOS以及一款用于根管预备数字化的实验室扫描仪的测量误差，并突出相邻牙齿的有无对数字模型质量的影响。
制作了两个模型：一个带有相邻牙齿，一个没有相邻牙齿，两个模型均有一个模拟根管预备的10毫米深的标称锥形窝。每个模型分别使用实验室扫描仪（E3）和4款口腔内扫描仪（Primescan、Omnicam、TRIOS 4和Medit i700）扫描10次。然后将数字模型导出为标准镶嵌语言（STL）文件，并进行分析，以评估在三个不同深度（0 - 3毫米、3 - 6毫米和6 - 9毫米）下根管预备数字化的平均测量误差。使用单向方差分析测试评估显著差异，并通过Tukey多重比较测试对扫描仪之间进行两两比较。
扫描仪之间存在统计学差异（P < 0.05）。平均测量误差范围从Medit i700的9.8 ± 0.5微米到E3的28.2 ± 10微米。在某些情况下，E3和Omnicam扫描仪无法完整地对锥形预备进行数字化处理。Primescan、TRIOS 4和Medit i700组显示出极小显著差异。相邻牙齿的存在对某些扫描仪的模型质量有负面影响，主要是因为阻碍了IOS的头部。
用于根管预备数字化的牙科扫描仪之间存在显著差异。使用现代口腔内扫描仪进行光学印模似乎是一种适用于桩核制作中桩核修复的根管预备记录方法。
