Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Oral Diagnosis and Oral Radiology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Cairo University, Newgiza University, Cairo, Egypt.
Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Jul;27(7):3787-3797. doi: 10.1007/s00784-023-04996-2. Epub 2023 Apr 13.
Despite the clear drive from both research and clinical dentistry toward digital transformation, there are limitations to implementing intra-oral scanning (IOS) into daily dental practice. This study aimed to compare the precision of digital models obtained from two alternative indirect workflows to direct IOS.
Two indirect digital workflows were evaluated in this study. In the IOS group (direct), IOS directly obtained digital impressions of participants' upper and lower dental arches, while in the Scan Impression (Scan Imp) group (indirect), a desktop scanner scanned silicone-based impressions of upper and lower whole arches that were taken with plastic trays. In the cone-beam computed tomography impression (CBCT Imp) group (indirect), a CBCT machine scanned the silicone-based impressions. Then, the precision of the entire arch and individual teeth for all digital impressions was virtually quantified. Following superimposition, differences between standard tessellation language (STL) files obtained from both-direct and indirect-methods were evaluated by color-mapping and measuring the surface distance between superimposed STL files. Furthermore, 18 linear measurements were taken from each digital model. ANOVA with repeated measures, Pearson coefficient, and intraclass correlation coefficient were used for intergroup comparisons.
The digital models obtained from the two indirect workflows differed from the IOS in some dental and intra-arch measurements but were considered clinically acceptable. Ranked against IOS, CBCT Imp models had greater precision, followed by Scan Imp.
Digital models obtained from two indirect, alternative workflows, desktop, and CBCT scanning of impression, have clinically acceptable accuracy and reliability of tooth size and intra-arch measurements, providing the use of proper methodologies.
There are some limitations to implementing IOS in daily clinical practice. However, several alternative digital model production techniques might provide an affordable solution. Although they may insignificantly differ in accuracy, all can be applied clinically.
尽管研究和临床牙科都明显倾向于数字化转型，但将口内扫描（IOS）应用于日常牙科实践仍存在一些限制。本研究旨在比较两种替代间接工作流程与直接 IOS 获得的数字模型的精度。
本研究评估了两种间接数字化工作流程。在 IOS 组（直接）中，IOS 直接获取参与者上下牙弓的数字印模，而在 Scan Imp（Scan Imp）组（间接）中，台式扫描仪扫描带有塑料托盘的上、下全牙弓硅橡胶印模。在锥形束计算机断层扫描印模（CBCT Imp）组（间接）中，CBCT 机扫描硅橡胶印模。然后，虚拟量化所有数字印模的整个牙弓和个别牙齿的精度。叠加后，通过颜色映射和测量叠加 STL 文件之间的表面距离来评估来自直接和间接方法的标准 tessellation language（STL）文件之间的差异。此外，从每个数字模型中获取 18 个线性测量值。使用方差分析、重复测量、皮尔逊系数和组内相关系数进行组间比较。
两种间接工作流程获得的数字模型在某些牙齿和牙弓测量值上与 IOS 不同，但被认为具有临床可接受性。与 IOS 相比，CBCT Imp 模型具有更高的精度，其次是 Scan Imp。
从两种间接、替代工作流程、桌面和 CBCT 扫描印模获得的数字模型，具有可接受的牙齿大小和牙弓测量值的准确性和可靠性，提供了适当的方法。
在日常临床实践中实施 IOS 存在一些限制。然而，几种替代的数字模型制作技术可能提供一个经济实惠的解决方案。尽管它们的准确性可能略有差异，但都可以在临床上应用。
