Elbashti Mahmoud E, Naveau Adrien, Spies Benedikt C, Hillebrecht Anna-Lena, Abou-Ayash Samir, Schimmel Martin, López-Quiles Juan, Molinero-Mourelle Pedro
Department of Advanced Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Science, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of dentistry, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
J Dent. 2025 Feb;153:105557. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105557. Epub 2025 Jan 10.
To in-vitro evaluate the feasibility and accuracy (trueness and precision) of various intraoral scanners (IOS) to digitize maxillectomy defect models with exposed zygomatic implants in situ.
Six partially edentulous and edentulous maxillectomy defect models with 2 zygomatic implants each were obtained. References scans were obatined by using a laboratory scanner (inEos X5; Dentsply Sirona). Three IOS, Trios 3, Trios 4 (3Shape A/S), and Primescan (Dentsply Sirona) were used first to digitize the entire model including implants and then to only scan the exposed part of zygomatic implants. The feasibility was assessed by evaluating the intraoral scanner's ability to accurately capture the maxillectomy defects and zygomatic implants, compared to a reference standard. Trueness and precision were evaluated using software's global best-fit alignment (GOM Inspect, GOM GmbH). Multifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean 3D deviation according to different scanners, groups, and model types. The significance level used in the analyses was 5 % (α=0.05).
All scanners showed adequate feasibility to scan the entire maxillectomy defects and exposed implants regardless of the structural complexity. The results of trueness showed that Primescan has the smallest 3D deviations (0.0252 mm) followed by Trios 4 (0,0275 mm), and then Trios 3 (0.0318 mm) (p < 0.001). The results of precision showed that Primescan had the smallest 3D deviations (0.0026 mm) followed by Trios 3 (0,0080 mm), and then Trios 4 (0,0097 mm) (p < 0.001).
Intraoral scanners differ in feasibility, trueness and accuracy of all scans, with Primescan providing the best combination of feasibility, trueness and accuracy, followed by Trios 4 and Trios 3.
Scanning maxillectomy defects with various exposed zygomatic implants can be feasible and accurate using intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Trios 4, and Primescan). The use of intraoral scanners for implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of maxillectomy defect can be a feasible alternative that can improve and simplify the workflow.
体外评估各种口腔内扫描仪(IOS)对原位带有暴露颧骨种植体的上颌骨切除缺损模型进行数字化处理的可行性和准确性(真实性和精确性)。
获取六个部分牙列缺失和全牙列缺失的上颌骨切除缺损模型,每个模型有2个颧骨种植体。通过使用实验室扫描仪(inEos X5;登士柏西诺德)获得参考扫描。首先使用三种IOS,即Trios 3、Trios 4(3Shape A/S)和Primescan(登士柏西诺德)对包括种植体在内的整个模型进行数字化处理,然后仅扫描颧骨种植体的暴露部分。通过将口腔内扫描仪准确捕捉上颌骨切除缺损和颧骨种植体的能力与参考标准进行比较来评估可行性。使用软件的全局最佳拟合对齐(GOM Inspect,GOM GmbH)评估真实性和精确性。使用多因素方差分析(ANOVA)比较不同扫描仪、组和模型类型的平均三维偏差。分析中使用的显著性水平为5%(α = 0.05)。
所有扫描仪在扫描整个上颌骨切除缺损和暴露的种植体方面均显示出足够的可行性,无论结构复杂性如何。真实性结果表明,Primescan的三维偏差最小(0.0252毫米),其次是Trios 4(0.0275毫米),然后是Trios 3(0.0318毫米)(p < 0.001)。精确性结果表明,Primescan的三维偏差最小(0.0026毫米),其次是Trios 3(0.0080毫米),然后是Trios 4(0.0097毫米)(p < 0.001)。
口腔内扫描仪在所有扫描的可行性、真实性和准确性方面存在差异,Primescan在可行性、真实性和准确性方面提供了最佳组合,其次是Trios 4和Trios 3。
使用口腔内扫描仪(Trios 3、Trios 4和Primescan)扫描带有各种暴露颧骨种植体的上颌骨切除缺损是可行且准确的。将口腔内扫描仪用于上颌骨切除缺损的种植修复康复可能是一种可行的替代方法,可改善和简化工作流程。