Pozzi Alessandro, Carosi Paolo, Gallucci German O, Nagy Katalin, Nardi Alessandra, Arcuri Lorenzo
Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Departement of Restorative Sciences, Dental College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, USA.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Oct;34(10):1106-1117. doi: 10.1111/clr.14141. Epub 2023 Jul 24.
To assess accuracy of intraoral optical scanning (IOS) and stereophotogrammetry (SPG), complete-arch digital implant impressions in vivo.
Consecutive patients needing implant-supported screw-retained zirconia complete-arch fixed-dental prostheses (ISZ-FDP) were recruited. For each patient, three impressions were taken: IOS, SPG (tests), and open-tray plaster (reference). Linear (ΔX, ΔY, and ΔZ), three-dimensional (ΔEUC), and angular deviations (ΔANGLE) were evaluated and stratified according to scanning technology for each implant. Potential effects of impression device (IOS and SPG), arch (maxilla and mandible), and implant number (4 and 6) were evaluated through multivariable analysis. Significance level was set at .05.
A total of 11 complete arches (5 maxillae, 6 mandibles) in 11 patients were rehabilitated with ISZ-FDPs supported by 4 (n = 8) and 6 implants (n = 3). A total of 50 implants and 100 implant positions were captured by two investigated devices and compared to respective reference (mean ΔEUC IOS 137.2, SPG 87.6 μm; mean ΔANGLE 0.79, 0.38°). Differences between measurements (SPG-IOS) were computed for each implant, with negative values indicating better SPG accuracy. Significant mean ΔEUC difference of -49.60 μm (p = .0143; SD 138.15) and mean ΔANGLE difference of -0.40° (p < .0001; SD 0.65) were observed in favor of SPG. Multivariable analysis showed significant effect on ΔEUC (p = .0162) and ΔANGLE (p = .0001) only for impression devices, with SPG performing better.
SPG experienced significantly higher linear and angular accuracy. No effect of type of arch or implant number was detected. Higher extreme deviations were experienced for IOS. SPG can be feasible for complete-arch digital impressions with caution, and rigid prototype try-in is recommended before screw-retained prosthesis manufacturing.
评估口腔内光学扫描(IOS)和立体摄影测量法(SPG)在体内获取全牙弓数字化种植体印模的准确性。
招募需要种植体支持的螺丝固位氧化锆全牙弓固定义齿(ISZ-FDP)的连续患者。对每位患者采集三种印模:IOS、SPG(测试)和开放托盘石膏印模(对照)。针对每个种植体,根据扫描技术评估线性偏差(ΔX、ΔY和ΔZ)、三维偏差(ΔEUC)和角度偏差(ΔANGLE),并进行分层分析。通过多变量分析评估印模设备(IOS和SPG)、牙弓(上颌和下颌)以及种植体数量(4颗和6颗)的潜在影响。显著性水平设定为0.05。
11例患者共11个全牙弓(5个上颌,6个下颌)接受了由4颗(n = 8)和6颗种植体(n = 3)支持的ISZ-FDP修复。两种研究设备共采集了50颗种植体和100个种植体位置的数据,并与各自的对照进行比较(IOS的平均ΔEUC为137.2,SPG为87.6μm;平均ΔANGLE为0.79,0.38°)。计算每个种植体测量值之间的差异(SPG - IOS),负值表明SPG的准确性更高。观察到有利于SPG的显著平均ΔEUC差异为 - 49.60μm(p = 0.0143;标准差138.15),平均ΔANGLE差异为 - 0.40°(p < 0.0001;标准差0.65)。多变量分析显示仅印模设备对ΔEUC(p = 0.0162)和ΔANGLE(p = 0.0001)有显著影响,SPG表现更好。
SPG的线性和角度准确性显著更高。未检测到牙弓类型或种植体数量的影响。IOS出现的极端偏差更大。谨慎使用SPG进行全牙弓数字化印模是可行的,建议在制造螺丝固位义齿之前进行刚性原型试戴。