Zaki Mostafa Shahin, Mohsen Cherif Adel, Mohamed Mostafa Elhusseiny
Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Misr Aswan Agricultural Rd. ،ARD SHALABY ،ELMinia, Minia, Egypt.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 May 10;25(1):702. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06062-7.
Intraoral scanning of post spaces offers a potential alternative to conventional impressions, but its effectiveness depends on overcoming limitations influenced by post space dimensions.
This study aimed to evaluate the trueness and depth discrepancy percentage of scanned post spaces with different dimensions using an intraoral scanner.
Twenty single-rooted human maxillary canines were endodontically treated. Teeth were assigned to two post space preparation width groups: N (Ø1.5 mm) and W (Ø1.7 mm) (n = 10 per group). Each width group was further subdivided into two depth subgroups: S (6 mm) and L (10 mm) (n = 5 per subgroup). This resulted in four experimental subgroups: NS (Ø1.5 mm, 6 mm), NL (Ø1.5 mm, 10 mm), WS (Ø1.7 mm, 6 mm), and WL (Ø1.7 mm, 10 mm). Specimens were scanned using the Panda P2 intraoral scanner (IOS), and the obtained STL files were aligned and compared with those from traditional impressions scanned with the InEos X5. Trueness and depth discrepancy percentage were evaluated using reverse engineering software. The data were statistically analysed using a Two-Way ANOVA, followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using Tukey's HSD for each individual factor.
Preparation width had no significant effect on trueness (p > 0.05), whereas increasing preparation depth significantly reduced it. Additionally, a greater preparation width significantly decreased the depth discrepancy percentage, while increasing preparation depth led to a significant increase. A statistically significant, very strong positive correlation was observed between RMS and depth discrepancy percentage (r = 0.898), indicating that greater deviations in trueness were associated with increased depth discrepancies.
Within the study's limitations, trueness improved by reducing post space depth and remained clinically acceptable for all subgroups. However, increasing depth to 10 mm raised the depth discrepancy beyond the clinically acceptable range, while decreasing width also increased discrepancy.
Not applicable.
根管桩间隙的口内扫描为传统印模提供了一种潜在的替代方法，但其有效性取决于克服受根管桩间隙尺寸影响的局限性。
本研究旨在使用口内扫描仪评估不同尺寸根管桩间隙扫描的准确性和深度差异百分比。
选取20颗单根人上颌尖牙进行根管治疗。将牙齿分为两个根管桩间隙预备宽度组：N组（直径1.5mm）和W组（直径1.7mm）（每组n = 10）。每个宽度组进一步细分为两个深度亚组：S组（6mm）和L组（10mm）（每个亚组n = 5）。这产生了四个实验亚组：NS组（直径1.5mm，6mm）、NL组（直径1.5mm，10mm）、WS组（直径1.7mm，6mm）和WL组（直径1.7mm，10mm）。使用熊猫P2口内扫描仪（IOS）对标本进行扫描，并将获得的STL文件进行对齐，并与使用InEos X5扫描的传统印模的文件进行比较。使用逆向工程软件评估准确性和深度差异百分比。数据采用双向方差分析进行统计学分析，随后使用Tukey's HSD对每个单独因素进行多重两两比较。
预备宽度对准确性无显著影响（p > 0.05），而增加预备深度会显著降低准确性。此外，更大的预备宽度显著降低了深度差异百分比，而增加预备深度导致显著增加。在均方根（RMS）和深度差异百分比之间观察到具有统计学意义的非常强的正相关（r = 0.898），表明准确性方面的更大偏差与深度差异增加有关。
在本研究的局限性范围内，通过减小根管桩间隙深度可提高准确性，并且所有亚组在临床上均可接受。然而，将深度增加到10mm会使深度差异超出临床可接受范围，而减小宽度也会增加差异。
不适用。
