不同扫描策略下数字化印模精度的评估：一项体外研究。
Evaluation of the accuracy of digital impressions with different scanning strategies: An in vitro study.
机构信息
Assistant Professor, Research Centre for the Study of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Postdoctoral student, Department of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Dentistry, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
出版信息
J Dent. 2024 Dec;151:105433. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105433. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of three different scanning strategies on the trueness and precision of optical impressions obtained with four intraoral scanners (IOSs).
METHODS
The reference maxillary dental arch model was fabricated using Telio CAD, and the reference digital reference cast was obtained using a computer numerical control machine and an optical scanner (E4, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Test scans were performed with four different IOSs (TRIOS3, MEDIT i700, CS 3600, and iTero Element 5D) by an experienced operator and three different scanning strategies (S1: manufacturer-recommended, S2: optimal per previous literature, and S3: experimental). The scan duration was recorded for each scan. All scans were converted to standard tessellation language format and imported into Geomagic Control X. The accuracy was measured by absolute deviation/distance between aligned surfaces. Data of trueness and precision of each IOS and scan duration were statistically compared using analysis of variance for repeated measures and Bonferroni post-hoc test (p < .05).
RESULTS
No significant differences in trueness were found among strategies (S1: 9.98 µm, S2: 11.93 µm, S3: 8.84 µm; p = .388) in Trios 3 and iTero Element 5D (S1: 12.24 µm, S2: 11.53 µm, S3: 10.71 µm; p = p = .279). Scanning strategy S3 with MEDIT i700 achieved greater trueness (7.33 µm) than S2 (16.33 µm, p < .05), while no significant difference was noted between S1 (10.44 µm) and S3 (p = .291). S3 showed the highest trueness (16.28 µm) compared to S2 (24.05 µm) and S1 (24.78 µm, p < .001) for CS 3600, with no difference between S1 and S2 (p = .457). Trios 3 had higher precision with S2 (22.46 µm) than S3 (31.69 µm, p < .05), and no significant differences between S1 (25.67 µm) and S2/S3 (p > .05). MEDIT i700 with S3 (29.52 µm) was more precise than both S1 (39.52 µm) and S2 (46.24 µm) (p < .001) with no difference between the last two (p = .302). S2 yielded the highest precision (44.93 µm) compared to S3 (61.81 µm) and S1 (76.53 µm) (p < .001) for CS 3600, with S3 more precise than S1 (p < .001). Similarly, iTero Element 5D showed S2 as the most precise (30.19 µm) compared to S3 (42.80 µm) and S1 (44.45 µm) (p < .05), with no difference between S1 and S3 (p = .472). Scan durations were shorter for S3 and S1 compared to S2 in Trios 3 (p < .001), and S3 was faster than S1 and S2 for MEDIT i700 (p < .001). CS 3600 scans with S1 were quicker than S2 and S3 (p < .001). For iTero Element 5D, no significant differences were found between S1 and S3 (p = .511), but S2 was slower than both (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Scanning strategies significantly affect the accuracy and scan duration of optical impressions. Specifically, S3 provided the best trueness with both the MEDIT i700 and the CS 3600 while the S2 strategy demonstrated the highest precision for most scanners. Overall, the S1 and S3 strategies resulted faster than S2 among the devices evaluated.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The results suggest that the experimental scan strategy may optimize the use of intraoral scanners in clinical practice, potentially leading to more accurate and time-efficient dental impressions.
目的
评估三种不同扫描策略对四种口内扫描仪（IOS）获得的光学印模准确性和精密度的影响。
方法
使用 Telio CAD 制作参考上颌牙弓模型，并使用数控机床和光学扫描仪（E4、3Shape，哥本哈根，丹麦）获得参考数字参考模型。由一位有经验的操作人员对四个 IOS（TRIOS3、MEDIT i700、CS 3600 和 iTero Element 5D）进行不同的扫描策略（S1：制造商推荐、S2：根据先前文献优化、S3：实验）测试扫描。记录每次扫描的扫描时间。所有扫描均转换为标准 tessellation language 格式并导入 Geomagic Control X。通过重复测量方差分析和 Bonferroni 事后检验（p <.05）比较每个 IOS 的准确性和精密度数据以及扫描时间。
结果
在 Trios 3 和 iTero Element 5D 中，三种扫描策略（S1：9.98 µm、S2：11.93 µm、S3：8.84 µm；p =.388）之间的准确性没有显著差异（S1：12.24 µm、S2：11.53 µm、S3：10.71 µm；p = p =.279）。对于 MEDIT i700，扫描策略 S3 的准确性更高（7.33 µm），优于 S2（16.33 µm，p <.05），而 S1（10.44 µm）和 S3 之间没有显著差异（p =.291）。与 S2（24.05 µm）和 S1（24.78 µm，p <.001）相比，S3 对 CS 3600 显示出最高的准确性（16.28 µm），S1 和 S2 之间没有差异（p =.457）。对于 CS 3600，Trios 3 的 S2（22.46 µm）比 S3（31.69 µm，p <.05）具有更高的精密度，而 S1 和 S2/S3 之间没有显著差异（p >.05）。与 S1（39.52 µm）和 S2（46.24 µm）相比，MEDIT i700 的 S3（29.52 µm）更精确（p <.001），而 S1 和 S2 之间没有差异（p =.302）。S2 对 CS 3600 产生的精度最高（44.93 µm），高于 S3（61.81 µm）和 S1（76.53 µm）（p <.001），而 S3 比 S1 更精确（p <.001）。同样，对于 iTero Element 5D，S2 比 S3（42.80 µm）和 S1（44.45 µm）更精确（p <.05），S3 比 S1 更精确（p =.472）。与 S2 相比，S3 和 S1 使 Trios 3 的扫描时间更短（p <.001），并且 S3 比 S1 和 S2 更快（p <.001）。对于 MEDIT i700，CS 3600 扫描 S1 比 S2 和 S3 更快（p <.001）。对于 iTero Element 5D，S1 和 S3 之间没有显著差异（p =.511），但 S2 比两者都慢（p <.001）。
结论
扫描策略会显著影响光学印模的准确性和扫描时间。具体来说，S3 为 MEDIT i700 和 CS 3600 提供了最佳的准确性，而 S2 策略为大多数扫描仪提供了最高的精度。总体而言，与评估的设备相比，S1 和 S3 策略的扫描速度更快。
临床意义
结果表明，实验性扫描策略可能优化了口内扫描仪在临床实践中的使用，从而可能提高牙科印模的准确性和效率。
Zotero 插件