Suppr超能文献

近期推出的无线口腔内扫描仪在不同固定局部义齿情况下的扫描准确性。

Scan accuracy of recently introduced wireless intraoral scanners in different fixed partial denture situations.

作者信息

Dönmez Mustafa Borga, Çakmak Gülce, Schimmel Martin, Bayadse Morse, Yilmaz Burak, Abou-Ayash Samir

机构信息

Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey.

出版信息

J Dent. 2025 Feb;153:105558. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105558. Epub 2025 Jan 3.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the in vitro scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of recently introduced wireless intraoral scanners (IOSs) to commonly used wired IOSs in different fixed partial denture (FPD) situations.

METHODS

Three partially edentulous maxillary models with implants located at different sites (lateral incisors [Model 1]; right canine and first molar [Model 2]; right first premolar and first molar [Model 3]) were digitized with wireless (Primescan 2 [P2] and TRIOS 5 [T5]) and wired (Primescan [P1] and TRIOS 3 [T3]) IOSs (n = 14 per IOS-model pair). The models were also digitized with an industrial-grade optical scanner for their reference scans. The IOS scans were superimposed over the reference scans to evaluate the 3D distance, angular, and 2D interimplant distance deviations (trueness). The variance of measured deviations was defined as the precision and all data were analyzed with bootstrap analysis of variance and Holm-corrected Welch tests (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The IOS, FPD situation, and their interaction affected the scan accuracy (P < 0.001). P2 scans mostly had the highest and the scans of Model 2 mostly had the lowest 3D distance accuracy (P ≤ 0.030). P1 scans had the highest angular accuracy within each model, followed by the P2 scans in Models 1 and 2 (P ≤ 0.002). P1 scans mostly had higher 2D interimplant distance accuracy (P ≤ 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital impressions of tested FPD situations had high accuracy mostly with P1 and P2. The scans for a posterior 4-unit FPD might have higher inaccuracies, regardless of the tested IOSs.

摘要

目的

比较近期推出的无线口腔内扫描仪(IOS)与常用有线IOS在不同固定局部义齿(FPD)情况下的体外扫描准确性(真实性和精密度)。

方法

使用无线(Primescan 2 [P2]和TRIOS 5 [T5])和有线(Primescan [P1]和TRIOS 3 [T3])IOS对三个上颌部分牙列缺失模型进行数字化处理,这些模型的种植体位于不同部位(侧切牙[模型1];右尖牙和第一磨牙[模型2];右第一前磨牙和第一磨牙[模型3])(每个IOS-模型对n = 14)。还使用工业级光学扫描仪对模型进行数字化处理以获取参考扫描。将IOS扫描与参考扫描进行叠加,以评估三维距离、角度和二维种植体间距离偏差(真实性)。测量偏差的方差定义为精密度,所有数据采用方差的自助分析和Holm校正的Welch检验进行分析(α = 0.05)。

结果

IOS、FPD情况及其相互作用影响扫描准确性(P < 0.001)。P2扫描大多具有最高的三维距离准确性,而模型2的扫描大多具有最低的三维距离准确性(P ≤ 0.030)。P1扫描在每个模型中具有最高的角度准确性,其次是模型1和2中的P2扫描(P ≤ 0.002)。P1扫描大多具有更高的二维种植体间距离准确性(P ≤ 0.047)。

结论

在测试的FPD情况下,数字印模大多具有较高的准确性,主要是使用P1和P2。无论测试的IOS如何,后牙4单位FPD的扫描可能具有较高的不准确性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验