Lyu Mingyue, Xu Dingyi, Li Yizhou, Zhang Shiwen, Zhao Heling, Yuan Quan
State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Department of Oral Implantology, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.
Department of Oral Implantology, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Head Face Med. 2025 Apr 28;21(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13005-025-00511-y.
To determine the influence of a consumable auxiliary device, the O-I buckle, on the accuracy of intraoral scanning among complete arches.
A standard mandibular model with six implants was used as the master model and was scanned by a precise dental laboratory scanner to establish a reference. Three impression techniques were compared: the conventional splinted open-tray impression (CI group), the digital intraoral scanning technique (IOS group), and IOS with the auxiliary device (OI group). For OI group, six prefabricated O-I buckles were attached for each intraoral scan body (ISB) and the definite models were scanned 10 times. The STL datasets were imported into a 3D inspection software to obtain the trueness and precision values for three scanning ranges (BCDE, BCDEF, and ABCDEF). The trueness was the absolute value of the root mean square (RMS) between the reference and test models, while precision referred to the value of the test group subtracted from each other. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparison tests.
The impression method (p <.001) and scanning range (p <.001) significantly influenced the trueness and precision of implant impressions for complete edentulous arches. The IOS with O-I buckle showed higher trueness compared to the IOS group for all implant configurations with most being significantly different (p =.758, = 0.04, and = < 0.001 for BCDE, BCDEF, and ABCDEF, respectively) and significantly higher precision was seen in group ABCDEF (p <.001). For four and five implants (group BCDE and BCDEF), there was no significant difference comparing IOS with O-I buckle and CI (p >.05). As the range expanded, the trueness and precision of IOS and OI decreased (p <.05), whereas the accuracy of CI remained stable.
The auxiliary O-I buckle fixed to the ISBs significantly improved the multiple-implant intraoral scanning accuracy for digital impressions in complete arches; With CI as a reference, the accuracy of IOS with OI buckles were comparable for four and five implants.
The digitization accuracy of intraoral scanning for complete edentulous arches can be improved through IOS with OI buckles. This may lead to improved passive fit of the restoration, improving patient outcomes in a convenient and cheap way.
确定一种可消耗辅助装置——O-I扣，对全牙弓口腔内扫描准确性的影响。
使用带有六个种植体的标准下颌模型作为主模型，并通过精密牙科实验室扫描仪进行扫描以建立参考。比较了三种印模技术：传统的夹板式开口托盘印模（CI组）、数字口腔内扫描技术（IOS组）以及使用辅助装置的IOS（OI组）。对于OI组，每个口腔内扫描体（ISB）附着六个预制的O-I扣，并对确定的模型进行10次扫描。将STL数据集导入3D检测软件，以获得三个扫描范围（BCDE、BCDEF和ABCDEF）的真实性和精度值。真实性是参考模型与测试模型之间均方根（RMS）的绝对值，而精度是指测试组相互减去的值。使用双向方差分析和事后多重比较检验对数据进行统计分析。
印模方法（p <.001）和扫描范围（p <.001）对全牙弓种植体印模的真实性和精度有显著影响。对于所有种植体配置，带有O-I扣的IOS与IOS组相比显示出更高的真实性，大多数差异显著（BCDE、BCDEF和ABCDEF分别为p =.758、= 0.04和= <.001），并且在ABCDEF组中观察到显著更高的精度（p <.001）。对于四个和五个种植体（BCDE组和BCDEF组），比较带有O-I扣的IOS和CI没有显著差异（p >.05）。随着范围扩大，IOS和OI的真实性和精度降低（p <.05），而CI的准确性保持稳定。
固定在ISB上的辅助O-I扣显著提高了全牙弓数字印模中多种植体口腔内扫描的准确性；以CI为参考，带有O-I扣的IOS对于四个和五个种植体的准确性相当。
通过带有O-I扣的IOS可以提高全牙弓口腔内扫描的数字化准确性。这可能会改善修复体的被动适合性，以方便且廉价的方式改善患者预后。
