Gen Dent. 2023 Jul-Aug;71(4):48-53.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of an intraoral scanner based on camera sleeve type, decontamination protocol, and calibration status. Five extracted human teeth were set into a gypsum stone model and prepared for various indirect restorations. An optical impression was completed with a benchtop scanner to serve as a reference standard. A total of 160 optical impressions were completed using a sterilizable sleeve, an autoclavable sleeve with a single-use plastic window, or a single-use disposable plastic sleeve attached to a calibrated or an uncalibrated intraoral scanner. For the sterilizable sleeves, 2 decontamination protocols were used--high-level disinfection (HLD) or dry heat sterilization (DHS)--and scans were performed at baseline and after 25 and 50 cycles for each protocol. For the autoclavable (AS) and disposable single-use (SU) sleeves, scans were performed at baseline only. Thus, there were 10 optical impressions per test condition: sleeve type (HLD, DHS, AS, or SU) × decontamination status (baseline, 25 cycles [HLD or DHS], or 50 cycles [HLD or DHS]) × calibration status (calibrated or uncalibrated scanner). The individual optical impressions were compared to the reference standard impression by using 3-dimensional best-fit superimposition with the prepared tooth surfaces as reference points, and 3-dimensional linear differences were calculated for each superimposition. The median positive and absolute value median negative distance measurements were averaged for each impression to generate an average median discrepancy from baseline. The data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05). No statistically significant differences in the median linear distance were found, regardless of sleeve type, decontamination protocol, or calibration status (P > 0.05). All groups demonstrated statistically similar linear disparities, ranging from 11.78 to 14.00 μm. The most precise sleeves were the single-use plastic sleeves, although their results were not significantly different from those of the multiuse sleeve. The results indicated that any of the currently available camera sleeves can provide similar accuracy in a clinical setting and that single-use disposable sleeves are a viable alternative to the currently accepted multiuse sleeves.
本研究旨在评估基于摄像头套类型、消毒方案和校准状态的口腔内扫描仪的准确性。将五颗提取的人牙固定在石膏模型中，并准备进行各种间接修复。使用台式扫描仪完成光学印模，作为参考标准。总共使用可消毒套管、带有一次性塑料窗的可高压蒸汽灭菌套管或连接到校准或未校准的口腔内扫描仪的一次性使用塑料套管完成了 160 次光学印模。对于可消毒套管，使用了两种消毒方案——高水平消毒 (HLD) 或干热灭菌 (DHS)——并在每种方案的基线以及 25 和 50 次循环后进行扫描。对于可高压蒸汽灭菌 (AS) 和一次性使用 (SU) 套管，仅在基线时进行扫描。因此，每个测试条件下有 10 个光学印模：套管类型 (HLD、DHS、AS 或 SU)×消毒状态 (基线、25 次循环 [HLD 或 DHS] 或 50 次循环 [HLD 或 DHS])×校准状态 (校准或未校准的扫描仪)。通过使用准备好的牙齿表面作为参考点的三维最佳拟合叠加来比较各个光学印模与参考标准印模，并计算每个叠加的三维线性差异。为每个印模生成平均中值差异，以生成从基线开始的平均中值差异。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Mann-Whitney U 检验 (α = 0.05) 对数据进行分析。无论套管类型、消毒方案还是校准状态如何，中位线性距离均无统计学差异 (P > 0.05)。所有组均显示出统计学上相似的线性差异，范围为 11.78 至 14.00 μm。最精确的套管是一次性塑料套管，尽管它们的结果与多用途套管没有显著差异。结果表明，在临床环境中，任何当前可用的摄像头套管都可以提供相似的准确性，并且一次性使用的一次性套管是目前可接受的多用途套管的可行替代品。
