Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi utca 47, H-1088, Budapest, Hungary.
Dental technicians, Artifex Dentis Kft. Révay utca 12, H-1065 Budapest, Hungary.
J Dent. 2024 Oct;149:105281. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105281. Epub 2024 Jul 31.
This study compared the accuracy of seven intraoral scanners (IOS) by the virtual-fit method.
Four maxillary arches with tooth abutments were scanned with an industrial reference scanner (n=1) and by Aoralscan3, EmeraldS, Helios600, Lumina, Mediti700, Primescan, and Trios5 IOSs (each n=12). Two complete-arch fixed frameworks were designed on each IOS scan with a 70 µm (group 70) and a 90 µm internal cement space (group 70+20, additional 20 µm at the margin). The virtual-fit method was comprised of superimposing the framework designs onto the reference scan using a non-penetrating algorithm simulating the clinical try-in. Internal and marginal gaps were measured. Precision was estimated by the mean absolute errors (MAE).
In group 70, Mediti700 (43 µm), Primescan (42 µm), and EmeraldS were in the best homogenous subset for the marginal gap, followed by the Lumina (67 µm), Aoralscan3 (70 µm), and Trios5 (70 µm), whereas Helios600 (118 µm) was in the third subset. Based on the MAE at the margin, Mediti700, Trios5, and EmeraldS were in the first-best homogenous subset, followed by Primescan. Lumina and Helios600 were in the third subset, and Aoralscan3 was in the fourth subset. In group 70+20, the marginal gap was significantly decreased for Lumina and Aoralscan3, whereas MAE significantly decreased for EmeraldS and Aoralscan3. The rank of IOSs was similar for the internal gap.
EmeraldS, Mediti700, Primescan, and Trios5 meet the marginal and internal fit criteria for fixed tooth-borne complete arch restorations. Increasing the cement space during design could enhance restoration fit.
The virtual-fit alignment method can effectively evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners, offering valuable clinical guidance for distinguishing among them. Recent software and hardware versions of long-standing IOS manufacturers are suitable for fabricating complete arch restoration.
本研究通过虚拟拟合方法比较了 7 种口内扫描仪（IOS）的准确性。
使用工业参考扫描仪（n=1）和 Aoralscan3、EmeraldS、Helios600、Lumina、Mediti700、Primescan 和 Trios5 IOS 扫描 4 个上颌弓带有牙支抗（n=12）。在每个 IOS 扫描上设计两个完整的牙弓固定框架，分别具有 70 µm（组 70）和 90 µm 内部水泥间隙（组 70+20，边缘增加 20 µm）。虚拟拟合方法包括使用非穿透算法将框架设计叠加到参考扫描上，模拟临床试戴。测量内部和边缘间隙。精度通过平均绝对误差（MAE）估计。
在组 70 中，Mediti700（43 µm）、Primescan（42 µm）和 EmeraldS 在边缘间隙的最佳同质子集中，其次是 Lumina（67 µm）、Aoralscan3（70 µm）和 Trios5（70 µm），而 Helios600（118 µm）则在第三子集中。根据边缘处的 MAE，Mediti700、Trios5 和 EmeraldS 处于最佳同质子集的首位，其次是 Primescan。Lumina 和 Helios600 处于第三子集，Aoralscan3 处于第四子集。在组 70+20 中，Lumina 和 Aoralscan3 的边缘间隙显著减小，而 EmeraldS 和 Aoralscan3 的 MAE 显著减小。IOS 的排名对于内部间隙相似。
EmeraldS、Mediti700、Primescan 和 Trios5 满足固定牙支持全牙弓修复的边缘和内部拟合标准。在设计过程中增加水泥间隙可以提高修复体的拟合度。
虚拟拟合对齐方法可以有效地评估不同口内扫描仪的准确性，为区分它们提供有价值的临床指导。历史悠久的 IOS 制造商的最新软件和硬件版本适用于制造全牙弓修复体。
