Division of Regenerative and Implant Sciences, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Division of Oral Restorative and Rehabilitative Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024 Jun;35(6):641-651. doi: 10.1111/clr.14259. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
This in-vitro study assessed the influence of two intraoral scanning (IOS) protocols on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of digital scans performed in edentulous arches.
Twenty-two abutment-level master casts of edentulous arches with at least four implants were scanned repeatedly five times, each with two different scanning protocols. Protocol A (IOS-A) consisted of scanning the edentulous arch before inserting the implant scan bodies, followed by their insertion and its subsequent digital acquisition. Protocol B (IOS-B) consisted of scanning the edentulous arch with the scan bodies inserted from the outset. A reference scan from each edentulous cast was obtained using a laboratory scanner. Trueness and precision were calculated using the spatial fit analysis, cross-arch distance, and virtual Sheffield test. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Statistical significance was set at α = .05.
In the spatial fit test, the precision of average 3D distances was 45 μm (±23 μm) with protocol IOS-A and 25 μm (±10 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001), and the trueness of average 3D distances was 44 μm (±24 μm) with protocol IOS-A and 24 μm (±7 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001). Cross-arch distance precision was 59 μm (±53 μm) for IOS-A and 41 μm (±43 μm) for IOS-B (p = .0035), and trueness was 64 μm (±47 μm) for IOS-A and 50 μm (±40 μm) for IOS-B (p = .0021). Virtual Sheffield precision was 286 μm (±198 μm) for IOS-A and 146 μm (±92 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001), and trueness was 228 μm (±171 μm) for IOS-A and 139 μm (±92 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001).
The IOS-B protocol demonstrated significantly superior accuracy. Placement of scan bodies before scanning the edentulous arch is recommended to improve the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scanning.
本体外研究评估了两种口内扫描（IOS）方案对无牙颌中数字扫描准确性（准确性和精密度）的影响。
对 22 个具有至少 4 个种植体的无牙颌基牙水平主模型进行了五次重复扫描，每次均采用两种不同的扫描方案。方案 A（IOS-A）包括在插入种植体扫描体之前扫描无牙颌，然后插入并进行后续的数字采集。方案 B（IOS-B）包括从一开始就插入扫描体扫描无牙颌。每个无牙颌模型均使用实验室扫描仪获得参考扫描。使用空间拟合分析、跨弓距离和虚拟谢菲尔德测试计算准确性和精密度。使用广义估计方程（GEE）进行统计分析。设定统计显著性水平为α=0.05。
在空间拟合测试中，协议 IOS-A 的平均 3D 距离精度为 45μm（±23μm），协议 IOS-B 的精度为 25μm（±10μm）（p<0.001），协议 IOS-A 的平均 3D 距离准确性为 44μm（±24μm），协议 IOS-B 的准确性为 24μm（±7μm）（p<0.001）。跨弓距离精度 IOS-A 为 59μm（±53μm），IOS-B 为 41μm（±43μm）（p=0.0035），准确性 IOS-A 为 64μm（±47μm），IOS-B 为 50μm（±40μm）（p=0.0021）。虚拟谢菲尔德精度 IOS-A 为 286μm（±198μm），IOS-B 为 146μm（±92μm）（p<0.001），准确性 IOS-A 为 228μm（±171μm），IOS-B 为 139μm（±92μm）（p<0.001）。
IOS-B 方案显示出明显更高的准确性。建议在扫描无牙颌之前放置扫描体，以提高全口口内扫描的准确性。
