School of Health and Life Sciences, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Department of Biological and Materials Sciences & Prosthodontics, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2023 Dec 19;18(12):e0295790. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295790. eCollection 2023.
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions using seven different scanbodies and four intraoral scanners. A 3D-printed maxillary model with six implants and their respective multi-unit abutments was used for this study. Seven scanbodies (SB1, SB2, SB3, SB4, SB5, SB6, and SB7) and four intraoral scanners (Primescan®, Omnican®, Trios 3®, and Trios 4®) were assessed. Each combination group was scanned ten times and a dental lab scanner (D2000, 3Shape) was used as a reference. All scans were exported as STL files, imported into Convince software (3Shape) for alignment, and later into Blender software, where their 3D positions were analyzed using a Python script. The 3D deviation, angular deviation, and linear distance between implants #3 and #14 were also measured. Accuracy was measured in terms of "trueness" (scanbody 3D deviation between intraoral scan and desktop scan). Kruskal-Wallis followed by the Bonferroni correction was used to analyze the data (⍺ = .05). The study found statistically significant differences in digital impression accuracy among the scanners and scanbodies (p<0.001). When comparing different intraoral scanners, the Primescan system showed the smallest 3D deviation (median 110.59 μm) and differed statistically from the others, while Trios 4 (median 122.35 μm) and Trios 3 (median 130.62 μm) did not differ from each other (p = .284). No differences were found in the linear distance between implants #3 and #14 between Trios 4, Primescan, and Trios 3 systems. When comparing different scanbodies, the lowest median values for 3D deviation were obtained by SB2 (72.27μm) and SB7 (93.31μm), and they did not differ from each other (p = .116). The implant scanbody and intraoral scanner influenced the accuracy of digital impressions on completely edentulous arches.
本研究旨在比较七种扫描体和四种口内扫描仪在全口数字化种植体印模中的准确性。为此研究使用了带有六个种植体及其相应多单位基台的 3D 打印上颌模型。评估了七种扫描体（SB1、SB2、SB3、SB4、SB5、SB6 和 SB7）和四种口内扫描仪（Primescan®、Omnican®、Trios 3®和 Trios 4®）。每个组合组扫描了十次，同时使用牙科实验室扫描仪（D2000，3Shape）作为参考。所有扫描均以 STL 文件导出，导入 Convince 软件（3Shape）进行对齐，然后导入 Blender 软件，使用 Python 脚本分析其 3D 位置。还测量了种植体 #3 和 #14 之间的三维偏差、角度偏差和线性距离。准确性以“准确性”（口内扫描和台式扫描之间的扫描体 3D 偏差）来衡量。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验 followed by 检验 followed by the Bonferroni correction 分析数据（⍺ =.05）。研究发现扫描仪和扫描体之间的数字印模准确性存在统计学上的显著差异（p<0.001）。在比较不同的口内扫描仪时，Primescan 系统显示出最小的三维偏差（中位数 110.59μm），与其他系统存在统计学差异，而 Trios 4（中位数 122.35μm）和 Trios 3（中位数 130.62μm）之间没有差异（p =.284）。Trios 4、Primescan 和 Trios 3 系统之间，种植体 #3 和 #14 之间的线性距离没有差异。在比较不同的扫描体时，SB2（72.27μm）和 SB7（93.31μm）的三维偏差中位数最低，且彼此之间没有差异（p =.116）。种植体扫描体和口内扫描仪会影响全口无牙颌的数字印模准确性。
