Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Marmara University Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Complex Health Campus, Başıbüyük Yolu 9/3 34854 Başıbüyük/Maltepe, İstanbul, Türkiye.
Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Nov 4;28(11):624. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06019-0.
Aimed to compare the volumetric calculations (VC) of intra-and-extraoral scanners on carious teeth before/after caries removal.
120 extracted human molars with ICDAS scores of 3, 4, and 5 were included. The teeth were scanned using an extraoral scanner (Ineos-X5, Dentsply Sirona) and three intraoral scanners (IOS) (iTero Element-5D, Align Technology; Primescan, Dentsply Sirona; Trios 4, 3Shape) before-and-after caries removal (CR). Eight Standard Tessellation Language (STL) data of each tooth sample were overlapped in Meshmixer (Autodesk) software for VC. Shapiro-Wilk, Paired Two-Sample T-test, repeated analysis of variance test statistics, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used (p < 0.05).
In initial VC, a significant difference observed between Ineos-X5 and iTero Element-5D (p < 0.001) and Ineos-X5 and Primescan (p < 0.001), regardless of the ICDAS score. No significant difference observed after CR between Ineos-X5 and iTero Element-5D (p = 0.917), Ineos-X5 and Primescan (p = 0.936), and Ineos-X5 and Trios 4 (p = 0.727) respectively. There was also no difference between the three IOS after CR (p ≥ 0.05), whereas the iTero Element-5D scanner significantly calculated less volume than Primescan and Trios-4 initially (p = 0.003). Maximum ICC was observed between the Ineos-X5 and Primescan in the ICDAS 5 score, before CR (ICC = 1, p < 0.001) and triple comparisons of iTero Element-5D, Primescan, and Trios-4 (ICC = 1, p < 0.001).
Carious and irregular surfaces might affect the data collection of IOS.
Intra-and-extraoral data may present negligible differences in the volumetric calculation, depending on the caries status and anatomical properties. These differences and factors may be important for future artificial intelligence networks that simulate the aftermath of caries removal. The IOSs tested in the current study can successfully collect data from irregular, deep and shallow cavities after caries removal.
比较龋去蚀前后口内和口外扫描仪对龋齿的体积计算(VC)。
共纳入 120 颗 ICDAS 评分 3、4 和 5 的人离体磨牙。使用口外扫描仪(Ineos-X5,登士柏西诺德)和三种口内扫描仪(IOS)(iTero Element-5D,Align Technology;Primescan,登士柏西诺德;Trios 4,3Shape)对龋齿去除(CR)前后的牙齿进行扫描。在 Meshmixer(Autodesk)软件中,将每个牙样本的 8 个标准网格语言(STL)数据重叠,以进行 VC。使用 Shapiro-Wilk、配对双样本 t 检验、重复方差分析检验统计和组内相关系数(ICC)(p<0.05)。
在初始 VC 中,Ineos-X5 和 iTero Element-5D(p<0.001)以及 Ineos-X5 和 Primescan(p<0.001)之间观察到显著差异,无论 ICDAS 评分如何。CR 后,Ineos-X5 和 iTero Element-5D(p=0.917)、Ineos-X5 和 Primescan(p=0.936)以及 Ineos-X5 和 Trios 4(p=0.727)之间均未观察到显著差异。CR 后三种 IOS 之间也无差异(p≥0.05),而 iTero Element-5D 扫描仪在初始时的体积计算值明显小于 Primescan 和 Trios-4(p=0.003)。在 CR 前,Ineos-X5 和 Primescan 在 ICDAS 5 评分中观察到最大 ICC(ICC=1,p<0.001),并且 iTero Element-5D、Primescan 和 Trios-4 之间的三重比较也观察到最大 ICC(ICC=1,p<0.001)。
龋齿和不规则表面可能会影响 IOS 的数据采集。
根据龋齿状况和解剖特性,口内和口外数据在体积计算方面可能存在微不足道的差异。这些差异和因素对于未来模拟龋齿去除后情况的人工智能网络可能很重要。本研究中测试的 IOS 可以成功地从龋蚀后不规则、深和浅的腔中收集数据。