Associate Professor Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, Director of Postgraduate Program of Advanced in Implant-Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Student Postgraduate Program of Advanced in Implant-Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
J Dent. 2024 Nov;150:105310. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105310. Epub 2024 Aug 15.
To measure the influence of scanning pattern on the accuracy, time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral implant scans.
A maxillary edentulous patient with 7 implants was selected. The reference implant cast was obtained using conventional methods (7Series Scanner). Four groups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the complete-arch implant scans by using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios4): manufacturer's recommended (Occlusal-Buccal-Lingual (OBL)), zig-zag (Zig-zag), circumferential (Circumf), and novel pattern that included locking an initial occlusal scan (O-Lock group) (n = 15). Scanning time and number of photograms were recorded. The linear and angular measurements were used to assess scanning accuracy. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness, scanning time, and number of photograms. The Levene test was selected to assess precision (α=0.05).
Statistically significant differences in trueness were detected among OBL, Zig-zag, Circumf, and O-Lock regarding linear discrepancy (P<0.01), angular discrepancy (P<0.01), scanning time (P<0.01), and number of photograms (P<0.01). The O-Lock (63 ± 20 µm) showed the best linear trueness with statistically significant differences (P < 0.01) with Circumferential (86 ± 16 µm) and OBL (87 ± 19 µm) groups. The O-Lock (93.5 ± 13.4 s, 1080 ± 104 photograms) and Circumf groups (102.9 ± 15.1 s, 1112 ± 179 photograms) obtained lower scanning times (P < 0.01) and number of photograms (P < 0.01) than OBL (130.3 ± 19.4 s, 1293 ± 161 photograms) and Zig-zag (125.7 ± 22.1 s, 1316 ± 160 photograms) groups.
The scanning patterns tested influenced scanning accuracy, time, and number of photograms of the complete-arch scans obtained by using the IOS tested. The zig-zag and O-Lock scanning patterns are recommended to obtain complete-arch implant scans when using the selected IOS.
测量扫描模式对全口种植体扫描的准确性、时间和全口摄影数量的影响。
选择一位上颌无牙患者，共植入 7 颗种植体。使用传统方法（7Series Scanner）获得参考种植体模型。使用口内扫描仪（IOS）（Trios4），根据获得全口种植体扫描的扫描模式，创建了四组：制造商推荐的（牙合颊舌（OBL））、锯齿状（锯齿状）、环形（Circumf）和包括锁定初始牙合扫描的新图案（O-Lock 组）（n = 15）。记录扫描时间和摄影数量。使用线性和角度测量来评估扫描准确性。使用单向方差分析和 Tukey 检验分析准确性、扫描时间和摄影数量。选择 Levene 检验评估精度（α=0.05）。
在 OBL、Zig-zag、Circumf 和 O-Lock 组中，线性差异（P<0.01）、角度差异（P<0.01）、扫描时间（P<0.01）和摄影数量（P<0.01）方面，O-Lock 在准确性方面存在统计学显著差异。O-Lock（63 ± 20 µm）具有最佳的线性准确性，与 Circumferential（86 ± 16 µm）和 OBL（87 ± 19 µm）组有统计学显著差异（P < 0.01）。O-Lock（93.5 ± 13.4 s，1080 ± 104 张照片）和 Circumf 组（102.9 ± 15.1 s，1112 ± 179 张照片）获得的扫描时间（P < 0.01）和摄影数量（P < 0.01）均低于 OBL（130.3 ± 19.4 s，1293 ± 161 张照片）和 Zig-zag 组（125.7 ± 22.1 s，1316 ± 160 张照片）。
测试的扫描模式影响了使用测试 IOS 获得的全口扫描的准确性、时间和摄影数量。当使用选定的 IOS 时，推荐使用锯齿状和 O-Lock 扫描模式获取全口种植体扫描。
