[Comparison of the accuracy of two types of scanning bodies for intraoral scanning in complete-arch implant-supported fixed restoration].

X J Fu, Z Z Cai, J Y Shi, H C Lai
{"title":"[Comparison of the accuracy of two types of scanning bodies for intraoral scanning in complete-arch implant-supported fixed restoration].","authors":"X J Fu, Z Z Cai, J Y Shi, H C Lai","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20240817-00315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To compare the accuracy of intraoral scanning for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis using umbrella scan bodies (USB) and conventional scan bodies (CSB), providing a reference for the clinical application of umbrella-shaped scanning bodies. <b>Methods:</b> A new type of umbrella-shaped scanning body and its matching auxiliary bar were independently developed. A maxillary type Ⅳ dental stone model with six parallel implant abutment analogs was fabricated. Conventional scanning bodies were installed on the model, and a laboratory scanner was used to scan the model as reference data. The CSB, USB, and USB combined with an auxiliary bar (U+SB) were installed on the model, respectively. A single attending physician performed intraoral scanning 10 times for each group using an intraoral scanner, serving as test group data (CSB, USB, U+SB). The test data were best-fit aligned with the virtual abutment models generated from the reference data. The trueness and precision of root-mean-square error (RMSE) values, inter-abutment distance deviations, angular deviations, and scanning time were measured and calculated. Repeated measures ANOVA and generalized estimating equation models were used for statistical analysis. <b>Results:</b> The trueness of RMSE values [(48.0±12.6) and (45.9±13.4) μm] and distance deviations [(64.5±60.2) and (63.8±54.4) μm] of the USB and U+SB groups were significantly better than those of the CSB group [(81.9±23.9) and (90.0±85.2) μm] (all <i>P</i><0.05). There was no significant difference in trueness of RMSE values and distance deviations between the USB group and U+SB group (all <i>P</i>>0.05). There were no significant differences in the precision of RMSE values and angular deviations among the three groups (all <i>P</i>>0.05). The scanning time of the USB group and U+SB group [(54.3±11.8) and (35.8±10.1) s] was significantly shorter than that of CSB group [(108.7±38.9) s] (all <i>P</i><0.05). <b>Conclusions:</b> Compared with conventional scanning bodies, the new umbrella-shaped scanning body demonstrates higher accuracy and efficiency for intraoral scanning impressions in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":23965,"journal":{"name":"中华口腔医学杂志","volume":"60 3","pages":"267-272"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华口腔医学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20240817-00315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the accuracy of intraoral scanning for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis using umbrella scan bodies (USB) and conventional scan bodies (CSB), providing a reference for the clinical application of umbrella-shaped scanning bodies. Methods: A new type of umbrella-shaped scanning body and its matching auxiliary bar were independently developed. A maxillary type Ⅳ dental stone model with six parallel implant abutment analogs was fabricated. Conventional scanning bodies were installed on the model, and a laboratory scanner was used to scan the model as reference data. The CSB, USB, and USB combined with an auxiliary bar (U+SB) were installed on the model, respectively. A single attending physician performed intraoral scanning 10 times for each group using an intraoral scanner, serving as test group data (CSB, USB, U+SB). The test data were best-fit aligned with the virtual abutment models generated from the reference data. The trueness and precision of root-mean-square error (RMSE) values, inter-abutment distance deviations, angular deviations, and scanning time were measured and calculated. Repeated measures ANOVA and generalized estimating equation models were used for statistical analysis. Results: The trueness of RMSE values [(48.0±12.6) and (45.9±13.4) μm] and distance deviations [(64.5±60.2) and (63.8±54.4) μm] of the USB and U+SB groups were significantly better than those of the CSB group [(81.9±23.9) and (90.0±85.2) μm] (all P<0.05). There was no significant difference in trueness of RMSE values and distance deviations between the USB group and U+SB group (all P>0.05). There were no significant differences in the precision of RMSE values and angular deviations among the three groups (all P>0.05). The scanning time of the USB group and U+SB group [(54.3±11.8) and (35.8±10.1) s] was significantly shorter than that of CSB group [(108.7±38.9) s] (all P<0.05). Conclusions: Compared with conventional scanning bodies, the new umbrella-shaped scanning body demonstrates higher accuracy and efficiency for intraoral scanning impressions in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[两种扫描体在全弓种植体固定修复中口腔内扫描精度的比较]。
目的:比较伞状扫描体(USB)与常规扫描体(CSB)对全弓种植体固定假体口腔内扫描的准确性,为伞状扫描体的临床应用提供参考。方法:自主研制一种新型伞形扫描体及其配套辅助杆。建立了上颌型Ⅳ牙结石模型,该模型具有6个平行种植基台类似物。在模型上安装常规扫描体,并使用实验室扫描仪对模型进行扫描作为参考数据。在模型上分别安装CSB、USB和USB结合辅助排(U+SB)。每组由一名主治医师使用口腔内扫描仪进行10次口腔内扫描,作为试验组数据(CSB、USB、U+SB)。试验数据与参考数据生成的虚拟基台模型最吻合。测量并计算均方根误差(RMSE)值、基台间距离偏差、角度偏差和扫描时间的真实度和精度。采用重复测量方差分析和广义估计方程模型进行统计分析。结果:USB组和U+SB组的RMSE值的正确率[(48.0±12.6)和(45.9±13.4)μm]和距离偏差[(64.5±60.2)和(63.8±54.4)μm]显著优于CSB组[(81.9±23.9)和(90.0±85.2)μm](均p < 0.05)。三组间RMSE值的精度和角度偏差比较,差异均无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。USB组和U+SB组的扫描时间[(54.3±11.8)s和(35.8±10.1)s]明显短于CSB组[(108.7±38.9)s](均p)结论:新型伞状扫描体与常规扫描体相比,对全弓种植体固定义齿的口腔内扫描印模具有更高的准确性和效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
中华口腔医学杂志
中华口腔医学杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9692
期刊介绍: Founded in August 1953, Chinese Journal of Stomatology is a monthly academic journal of stomatology published publicly at home and abroad, sponsored by the Chinese Medical Association and co-sponsored by the Chinese Stomatology Association. It mainly reports the leading scientific research results and clinical diagnosis and treatment experience in the field of oral medicine, as well as the basic theoretical research that has a guiding role in oral clinical practice and is closely combined with oral clinical practice. Chinese Journal of Over the years, Stomatology has been published in Medline, Scopus database, Toxicology Abstracts Database, Chemical Abstracts Database, American Cancer database, Russian Abstracts database, China Core Journal of Science and Technology, Peking University Core Journal, CSCD and other more than 20 important journals at home and abroad Physical medicine database and retrieval system included.
期刊最新文献
[Incidence and morphometric analysis of the foramen of Huschke using cone-beam CT]. [Accuracy comparison of an autonomous dental implant robotic system in immediate and delayed implant placement]. [Exploring the therapeutic targets and molecular mechanisms of pimecrolimus in the treatment of oral lichen planus based on network pharmacology, machine learning, and molecular docking]. [Deep learning-based assessment of periodontal ligament area changes in maxillary central incisors under different orthodontic regimens using cone-beam CT images]. [Evaluation of Chinese artificial intelligence large language models in oral mucosal disease consultation].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1