Ciocan Lucian Toma, Vasilescu Vlad Gabriel, Răuță Sabina-Ana, Pantea Mihaela, Pițuru Silviu-Mirel, Imre Marina
Discipline of Dental Prosthetics Technology, Faculty of Dentistry, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dionisie Lupu Street, No. 37, District 2, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.
Faculty of Dentistry, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dionisie Lupu Street, No. 37, District 2, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Jul 8;14(13):1453. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14131453.
(1) Background: Intraoral scanners undergo rapid advancements in hardware and software, prompting frequent updates by manufacturers. (2) Aim: This study aimed to quantitatively assess the precision of full dental arch digital impressions obtained from four different intraoral scanners: Trios 5-3SHAPE, Copenhagen, Denmark, CEREC Primescan- Dentsply Sirona, New York, NY, USA, Planmeca Emerald S-Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland, and Medit i700-Medit Corp, Seoul, Republic of Korea. (3) Methods: A maxillary virtual dental model (digital master model) was created in accordance with ISO standard 20896-1. Subsequently, a 3D-printed model was obtained from the master model's STL file and scanned 15 times consecutively with each scanner. STL files were aligned with the master model's STL using Medit Link-Medit Design software v.3.1.0. The accuracy was evaluated by measuring deviations in micrometers between each scanner's scans and the master model. (4) Results: The study revealed variations in accuracy ranging from 23 to 32 µm across scans of the same dental arch, irrespective of the scanner used and scanning strategy employed. The anterior regions exhibited higher precision (Mean Absolute Deviation of 112 µm) compared to the posterior regions (Mean Absolute Deviation of 127 µm). Trios 5 demonstrated the smallest deviation (average 112 µm), indicating superior accuracy among the scanners tested. Emerald S and Medit i700 exhibited balanced performance (average 117 µm and 114 µm, respectively), while Primescan consistently displayed high deviation (average 127 µm). (5) Conclusions: Based on clinically accepted thresholds for accuracy in intraoral scanning, which are typically 200 µm for full arch scans, Trios 5 surpasses these benchmarks with its average deviation falling within the 200 µm range. Emerald S and Medit i700 also meet these standards, while Primescan, although showing high overall deviation, approaches the upper limit of clinical acceptability. Considering the limitations of an in vitro investigation, the findings demonstrate that each intraoral scanner under evaluation is capable of reliably and consistently capturing a full arch scan for dentate patients.
(1) 背景:口腔内扫描仪在硬件和软件方面取得了快速进展,促使制造商频繁进行更新。(2) 目的:本研究旨在定量评估从四种不同的口腔内扫描仪获得的全牙弓数字印模的精度:Trios 5-3SHAPE,丹麦哥本哈根;CEREC Primescan - 美国纽约州纽约市登士柏西诺德公司;普兰梅卡Emerald S - 芬兰赫尔辛基的普兰梅卡公司;以及Medit i700 - 韩国首尔的Medit公司。(3) 方法:根据ISO标准20896-1创建上颌虚拟牙模型(数字主模型)。随后,从主模型的STL文件获得一个3D打印模型,并用每种扫描仪连续扫描15次。使用Medit Link-Medit Design软件v.3.1.0将STL文件与主模型的STL文件对齐。通过测量每个扫描仪的扫描与主模型之间以微米为单位的偏差来评估准确性。(4) 结果:研究表明,无论使用何种扫描仪和采用何种扫描策略,同一牙弓扫描的精度变化范围为23至32微米。与后部区域(平均绝对偏差为127微米)相比,前部区域表现出更高的精度(平均绝对偏差为112微米)。Trios 5表现出最小的偏差(平均112微米),表明在所测试的扫描仪中具有更高的准确性。Emerald S和Medit i700表现出平衡的性能(分别平均为117微米和114微米),而Primescan始终显示出较大的偏差(平均127微米)。(5) 结论:基于口腔内扫描临床上公认的准确性阈值,全牙弓扫描通常为200微米,Trios 5的平均偏差落在200微米范围内,超过了这些基准。Emerald S和Medit i700也符合这些标准,而Primescan虽然总体偏差较大,但接近临床可接受性的上限。考虑到体外研究的局限性,研究结果表明,所评估的每种口腔内扫描仪都能够可靠且一致地为有牙患者获取全牙弓扫描。