Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain.
J Dent. 2024 Aug;147:105081. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105081. Epub 2024 May 24.
To measure the impact of the superimposition methods on accuracy analyses in digital implant research using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software.
A six-implant edentulous maxillary model was scanned using a desktop scanner (7Series; DentalWings; Montreal, Canada) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4; 3Shape; Copenhagen, Denmark) to generate a reference and an experimental mesh, respectively. Thirty experimental standard tesselletion language (STL) files were superimposed onto the reference model's STL using the core features of six superimposition methods, creating the following groups: initial automated pre-alignment (GI), landmark-based alignment (G1), partial area-based alignment (G2), entire area-based alignment (G3), and double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire model area-based alignment (G4 ) or the scan bodies' surface (G5). The groups underwent various alignment variations, resulting in sixteen subgroups (n = 30). The alignment accuracy between experimental and reference meshes was quantified by using the root mean square (RMS) error as trueness and its fluctuation as precision. The Kruskal-Wallis test with a subsequent adjusted post-hoc Dunn's pairwise comparison test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). The reliability of the measurements was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
A total of 480 superimpositions were performed. No significant differences were found in trueness and precision among the groups (p > 0.05), except for partial area-based alignment (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed significant differences for partial area-based alignment considering only one scan body (p < 0.001). Initial automated alignment was as accurate as landmark-based, partial, or entire area-based alignments (p > 0.05). Double alignments did not improve alignment accuracy (p > 0.05). The entire area-based alignment of the scan bodies' surface had the least effect on accuracy analyses.
Digital oral implant investigation remains unaffected by the superimposition method when ISO-recommended 3D metrology-grade inspection software is used. At least two scan bodies are needed when considering partial area-based alignments.
The superimposition method choice within the tested ISO-recommended 3D inspection software did not impact accuracy analyses in digital implant investigation.
使用 ISO 推荐的三维（3D）计量级检测软件，测量叠加方法对数字化种植研究中准确性分析的影响。
使用桌面扫描仪（7Series；DentalWings；加拿大蒙特利尔）和口腔内扫描仪（TRIOS 4；3Shape；丹麦哥本哈根）分别对无牙上颌模型的 6 个种植体进行扫描，以生成参考模型和实验模型的网格。使用 6 种叠加方法的核心功能，将 30 个实验标准 tessellation language（STL）文件叠加到参考模型的 STL 上，形成以下组：初始自动预对准（GI）、基于地标对准（G1）、基于部分区域对准（G2）、基于整个区域对准（G3），以及将基于地标对准与整个模型区域对准（G4）或扫描体表面（G5）相结合的双重对准。对这些组进行了各种对准变化，共产生 16 个亚组（n=30）。通过使用均方根误差（RMS）作为准确性和其波动作为精度来量化实验模型和参考模型网格之间的对准精度。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验和随后的调整后事后 Dunn 配对比较检验分析数据（α=0.05）。采用组内相关系数（ICC）评估测量的可靠性。
共进行了 480 次叠加。除了基于部分区域的对准（p <0.001）外，各组之间的准确性和精度均无显著差异（p >0.05）。亚组分析显示，仅考虑一个扫描体时，基于部分区域的对准存在显著差异（p <0.001）。初始自动对准与基于地标、基于部分或基于整个区域的对准一样准确（p >0.05）。双重对准并没有提高对准精度（p >0.05）。扫描体表面的整个区域对准对准确性分析的影响最小。
当使用 ISO 推荐的 3D 计量级检测软件时，数字化口腔种植研究不受叠加方法的影响。在考虑基于部分区域的对准时，至少需要两个扫描体。
在所测试的 ISO 推荐 3D 检测软件中，叠加方法的选择不会影响数字化种植研究中的准确性分析。
