Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, OH, USA.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey.
J Dent. 2023 Nov;138:104697. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104697. Epub 2023 Sep 9.
To compare the scans of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) and laboratory scanners (LBSs) to those of an industrial-grade optical scanner by measuring deviations of complete-arch implant-supported frameworks from their virtual design file.
Ten polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and 10 titanium (Ti) complete-arch implant-supported frameworks were milled from a master standard tessellation language (STL) file. An industrial-grade blue light scanner (AT), 2 LBSs (MT and E4), and 3 IOSs (PS, T3, and T4) were used to generate STL files of these frameworks. All STLs were imported into an analysis software (Geomagic Control X) and overall root mean square (RMS) values were calculated. Marginal surfaces of all STL files were then virtually isolated (Medit Link v 2.4.4) and marginal RMS values were calculated. Deviations in scans of tested scanners were compared with those in scans of AT by using a linear mixed effects model (α = 0.05).
When the scans of PEEK frameworks were considered, PS and T3 had similar overall RMS to those of AT (p ≥ .076). However, E4 and T4 had higher and MT had lower overall RMS than AT (p ≤ .002) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 13.41 µm. When the scans of Ti frameworks were considered, AT had significantly lower overall RMS than tested scanners (p ≤ .010) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 31.35 µm. Scans of tested scanners led to significantly higher marginal RMS than scans of AT (p ≤ .006) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 53.90 µm for PEEK and 40.50 µm for Ti frameworks.
Only the PEEK framework scans of PS and T3 led to similar overall deviations to those of AT. However, scans of all tested scanners resulted in higher marginal deviations than those of AT scans.
Scans performed by using PS and T3 may be alternatives to those of tested reference industrial scanner AT, for the overall fabrication trueness analysis of complete-arch implant-supported PEEK frameworks.
通过测量全口种植支持框架与其虚拟设计文件之间的偏差，比较不同口内扫描仪（IOS）和实验室扫描仪（LBS）与工业级光学扫描仪的扫描结果。
从一个主标准 tessellation language（STL）文件中铣削出 10 个聚醚醚酮（PEEK）和 10 个钛（Ti）全口种植支持框架。使用工业级蓝光扫描仪（AT）、2 个 LBS（MT 和 E4）和 3 个 IOS（PS、T3 和 T4）生成这些框架的 STL 文件。所有的 STL 文件都被导入到一个分析软件（Geomagic Control X）中，并计算出总体均方根（RMS）值。然后，所有 STL 文件的边缘表面都被虚拟隔离（Medit Link v 2.4.4），并计算出边缘 RMS 值。通过使用线性混合效应模型（α=0.05）比较测试扫描仪的扫描结果与 AT 的扫描结果之间的差异。
当考虑 PEEK 框架的扫描结果时，PS 和 T3 的总体 RMS 与 AT 相似（p≥0.076）。然而，E4 和 T4 的总体 RMS 高于 AT，而 MT 的总体 RMS 低于 AT（p≤0.002），最大估计平均差异为 13.41µm。当考虑 Ti 框架的扫描结果时，AT 的总体 RMS 明显低于测试扫描仪（p≤0.010），最大估计平均差异为 31.35µm。测试扫描仪的扫描结果导致边缘 RMS 明显高于 AT 的扫描结果（p≤0.006），PEEK 框架的最大估计平均差异为 53.90µm，Ti 框架的最大估计平均差异为 40.50µm。
只有 PS 和 T3 的 PEEK 框架扫描结果与 AT 的整体偏差相似。然而，所有测试扫描仪的扫描结果都导致了比 AT 扫描更高的边缘偏差。
对于全口种植支持 PEEK 框架的整体制造精度分析，PS 和 T3 的扫描结果可能是测试参考工业扫描仪 AT 的替代方案。
