Meshni Abdullah A, Jain Saurabh, Osaysi Hanan Nasser Marie, Hezam Khadijah Nasser, Adlan Samar Samir Gomaan
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.
Intern Clinic, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Dec 23;14(24):2893. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14242893.
The present study aims to assess and compare the accuracy of post-space impressions captured by three different intraoral scanners (IOS) using various canal diameters.
Three extracted natural maxillary central incisors were selected and prepared for a 1 mm wide margin and a 3 mm ferrule. All steps required for the endodontic procedure were performed, and the post space was prepared using post drills. The post length was kept constant at 12 mm, whereas the width was varied (Group 1: 1.4 mm, Group 2: 1.6 mm, and Group 3: 1.8 mm). Three IOSs (Trios3, iTero2, and Medit i700) were used to acquire a digital impression of the prepared post space. Each tooth was scanned 10 times by each scanner. So, in the end, 90 digital images were recorded, and the STL files were stored. GC Pattern resin was used to fabricate resin post and core patterns, which were scanned using an extraoral scanner (EOS). The STL file obtained was used as the reference file. To evaluate the trueness of the tested IOSs, each three-dimensional scan from an IOS was superimposed on the reference scan with the help of the Medit Design software 2.1.4. The software generates color plots and gives numerical values as deviations in the Root mean square (RMS) for the variance between the two superimposed scans. The data collected was tabulated for statistical analysis. One Way ANOVA was used to test the significance difference between three different IOSs, followed by Bonferroni Post-hoc test pairwise test to identify the differences between every two different IOS. Statistical significance was set at < 0.05.
The mean deviation for trueness in post space impression values recorded by the Medit i700 was highest among groups 1, 2, and 3 [0.825 (±0.071), 0.673 (±0.042) and 0.516 (±0.039), respectively], followed by iTero2 [0.738 (±0.081), 0.569 (±0.043) and 0.470 (±0.037), respectively] and Trios3 [0.714 (±0.062), 0.530 (±0.040) and 0.418 (±0.024), respectively]. Significant differences were found between the groups for all three IOSs (Trios3: -value < 0.0001; iTero2: -value < 0.0001; Medit i700: -value < 0.0001).
Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Trios3 IOS has higher accuracy (as it exhibited minimal deviation for trueness) in recording post space, followed by iTero2 and Mediti700 IOS. As the diameter of the post space is increased, the accuracy of recording by IOS increases. For all the tested IOSs (except for Trios3 and iTero2, when used to record post space with 1.8 mm canal diameter), the deviations in trueness were higher than the clinically acceptable limits. Thus, IOSs should be used cautiously when recording impressions of post spaces.
本研究旨在评估和比较三种不同口腔内扫描仪（IOS）在不同根管直径情况下获取的桩道印模的准确性。
选取三颗拔除的天然上颌中切牙，制备1毫米宽的边缘和3毫米的箍。进行根管治疗所需的所有步骤，并使用桩钻制备桩道。桩的长度保持恒定为12毫米，而宽度有所变化（第1组：1.4毫米，第2组：1.6毫米，第3组：1.8毫米）。使用三种IOS（Trios3、iTero2和Medit i700）获取制备好的桩道的数字印模。每颗牙齿由每个扫描仪扫描10次。因此，最终记录了90张数字图像，并存储了STL文件。使用GC Pattern树脂制作树脂桩核模型，并用口外扫描仪（EOS）进行扫描。获得的STL文件用作参考文件。为了评估受试IOS的准确性，借助Medit Design软件2.1.4将来自IOS的每次三维扫描与参考扫描进行叠加。该软件生成彩色图，并给出作为两次叠加扫描之间方差的均方根（RMS）偏差的数值。收集的数据制成表格进行统计分析。使用单因素方差分析来检验三种不同IOS之间的显著差异，随后进行Bonferroni事后检验两两比较，以确定每两种不同IOS之间的差异。设定统计学显著性为<0.05。
在第1、2和3组中，Medit i700记录的桩道印模准确性的平均偏差最高[分别为0.825（±0.071）、0.673（±0.042）和0.516（±0.039）]，其次是iTero2[分别为0.738（±0.081）、0.569（±0.043）和0.470（±0.037）]和Trios3[分别为0.714（±0.062）、0.530（±0.040）和0.418（±0.024）]。在所有三种IOS的组间均发现显著差异（Trios3：-值<0.0001；iTero2：-值<0.0001；Medit i700：-值<0.0001）。
在本研究的局限性内，可以得出结论，Trios3 IOS在记录桩道方面具有更高的准确性（因为它在准确性方面表现出最小的偏差），其次是iTero2和Mediti700 IOS。随着桩道直径的增加，IOS记录的准确性提高。对于所有受试IOS（除了Trios3和iTero2用于记录1.8毫米根管直径的桩道时），准确性偏差高于临床可接受限度。因此，在记录桩道印模时应谨慎使用IOS。
