Shen Yuyin, Gong Zhicheng, Wang Jue, Fang Shuobo
Department of Dental Technology, Shanghai Stomatological Hospital & School of Stomatology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai Stomatological Hospital & School of Stomatology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Craniomaxillofacial Development and Diseases, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Heliyon. 2024 Nov 17;10(22):e40477. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40477. eCollection 2024 Nov 30.
To compare the accuracy of digital tooth preparations recorded using the plaster model scanning technique and two silicone impression scanning techniques.
A maxillary resin model with incisor and first molar abutment preparations was used as the experimental model and scanned to serve as the gold standard. Three groups of digital models were generated, with 10 models in each group. Group 1 comprised 10 silicone impressions of the experimental model and were scanned using the 3Shape Trios3 intraoral scanner. Group 2 comprised 10 impressions covered with a scanning spray and scanned using the 3Shape D2000 extraoral scanner. Group 3 comprised plaster models made from the 10 impressions and scanned using the 3Shape D2000 extraoral scanner. Root mean square values were obtained by comparing the scanning data of each group with the gold standard using the Geomagic software. The one-way analysis of variance and paired student's -tests were used to analyse the root mean squares; the significance level was set at 0.05.
No statistically significant difference was observed in the root mean squares of the non-prepared teeth among the three groups (P = 0.12). The mean root mean squares of Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 0.11 ± 0.03 mm, 0.07 ± 0.03 mm, and 0.10 ± 0.05 mm, respectively. A statistical difference was observed in the incisor area among the three groups (P < 0.05), wherein Group 2 showed the lowest root mean square value (0.06 ± 0.02 mm). No significant difference was observed in the first molar area among the three groups (P = 0.142).
Digital tooth preparations models obtained from silicone impressions by extraoral scanning showed similar accuracy to intraoral scanning and plaster model scanning. This indicates that the clinical workflow of taking silicone impressions and scanning with an extraoral scanner is an acceptable and convenient choice.
比较使用石膏模型扫描技术和两种硅橡胶印模扫描技术记录的数字化牙齿预备的准确性。
以上颌带有切牙和第一磨牙基牙预备的树脂模型作为实验模型，并进行扫描作为金标准。生成三组数字化模型，每组10个模型。第1组包括实验模型的10个硅橡胶印模，使用3Shape Trios3口内扫描仪进行扫描。第2组包括10个覆盖有扫描喷雾的印模，使用3Shape D2000口外扫描仪进行扫描。第3组包括由这10个印模制作的石膏模型，使用3Shape D2000口外扫描仪进行扫描。使用Geomagic软件将每组的扫描数据与金标准进行比较，获得均方根值。采用单因素方差分析和配对t检验分析均方根值；显著性水平设定为0.05。
三组中未预备牙齿的均方根值无统计学显著差异（P = 0.12）。第1组、第2组和第3组的平均均方根值分别为0.11±0.03mm、0.07±0.03mm和0.10±0.05mm。三组在切牙区域存在统计学差异（P < 0.05），其中第2组的均方根值最低（0.06±0.02mm）。三组在第一磨牙区域未观察到显著差异（P = 0.142）。
通过口外扫描从硅橡胶印模获得的数字化牙齿预备模型显示出与口内扫描和石膏模型扫描相似的准确性。这表明采用硅橡胶印模并使用口外扫描仪进行扫描的临床工作流程是一种可接受且便捷的选择。
Zotero 插件
