Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Director of Postgraduate Program of Advanced in Implant-Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Advanced in Implant-Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Jun;34(6):591-601. doi: 10.1111/clr.14069. Epub 2023 Apr 13.
To measure the influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans acquired using an intraoral scanner (IOS).
A maxillary (maxillary group) and mandibular (mandibular group) model with 6 implant abutments on each cast was digitized using a desktop scanner (control scans). Six subgroups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the scans using an IOS (Trios 4): occluso-buccal-lingual (OBL subgroup), occluso-linguo-buccal (OLB subgroup), bucco-linguo-occlusal (BLO subgroup), linguo-buccal-occlusal (LBO subgroup), zigzag (ZZ subgroup), and circumferential (C subgroup). The control scans were used as a reference to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans calculating the root mean square error. Two-way ANOVA and the pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05).
Significant discrepancies in trueness (p < .001), precision (p < .001), scanning time (p < .001), and number of photograms (p < .001) were found. The maxillary group obtained poorer trueness and precision values, higher scanning times, and a larger number of photograms than the mandibular group. The C subgroup obtained the best trueness and precision values, but was not significantly different from the OLB, BLO, and LBO subgroups. The ZZ subgroup obtained the worst trueness and precision values (p < .05). The C subgroup obtained the lowest scanning time and number of photograms (p < .05).
Arch location and scanning pattern influenced scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans.
测量牙弓位置和扫描模式对使用口腔内扫描仪（IOS）获取的全牙弓种植扫描的准确性、扫描时间和摄影数量的影响。
使用桌面扫描仪（对照扫描）对带有每个模型上 6 个种植体基台的上颌（上颌组）和下颌（下颌组）模型进行数字化。根据使用 IOS（Trios 4）获取扫描的扫描模式创建了 6 个亚组：颊舌（OBL 亚组）、颊舌（OLB 亚组）、颊舌（BLO 亚组）、舌颊（LBO 亚组）、Zigzag（ZZ 亚组）和环形（C 亚组）。对照扫描用作测量与实验扫描的差异的参考，通过计算均方根误差来测量准确性。使用双向方差分析和两两比较 Tukey 检验进行数据分析（α = .05）。
发现准确性（p < .001）、精度（p < .001）、扫描时间（p < .001）和摄影数量（p < .001）存在显著差异。上颌组的准确性和精度值较差，扫描时间较长，摄影数量较多，下颌组的准确性和精度值较好。C 亚组获得了最佳的准确性和精度值，但与 OLB、BLO 和 LBO 亚组无显著差异。ZZ 亚组获得了最差的准确性和精度值（p < .05）。C 亚组获得了最短的扫描时间和摄影数量（p < .05）。
牙弓位置和扫描模式影响全牙弓种植扫描的扫描准确性、扫描时间和摄影数量。
