Scanning Accuracy of 10 Intraoral Scanners for Single-crown and Three-unit Fixed Denture Preparations: An In Vitro Study.

Xin Yue Zhang, Yue Cao, Zhe Wen Hu, Yong Wang, Hu Chen, Yu Chun Sun
{"title":"Scanning Accuracy of 10 Intraoral Scanners for Single-crown and Three-unit Fixed Denture Preparations: An In Vitro Study.","authors":"Xin Yue Zhang,&nbsp;Yue Cao,&nbsp;Zhe Wen Hu,&nbsp;Yong Wang,&nbsp;Hu Chen,&nbsp;Yu Chun Sun","doi":"10.3290/j.cjdr.b3317959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the accuracy of 10 intraoral scanners for single-crown and three-unit preparation models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A maxillary partially edentulous model was fabricated. A dental cast scanner was used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) data. Ten intraoral scanners, namely Trios 2 (TR2; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), True Definition (TD; 3M, Saint Paul, MN, USA), CEREC AC Omnicam (OM; Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), Organical Scan Oral (OS; R+K, Berlin, Germany), PlanScan (PS; Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland), DWIOP (DW; Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada), Xianlin (XL; Hangzhou Xianlin, Hangzhou, China), DL-100 (DL; Guangzhou Longcheng, Guangzhou, China), Trios 3 (TR3; 3Shape) and i500 (MD; MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea) were used to obtain stereolithography data as test groups. Trueness, precision and surface accuracy were evaluated by deviation analysis using 3D image processing software. One tooth with a three-unit preparation for each test group was registered with the reference scan data, and the absolute distance from another tooth was calculated as the absolute accuracy. The data were analysed using a Mann-Whitney U test and Dunn-Bonferroni test (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The best trueness, precision and surface accuracy of scanning single crown preparation were recorded with TD (trueness 2.9 μm and precision 1.9 μm) and XL (surface accuracy 20.3 ± 2.9 μm). The best trueness, precision, surface accuracy and absolute accuracy of three-unit preparations were recorded with TD (2.6 μm), XL (1.9 μm), OM (27.1 ± 5.2 μm) and TR3 (79.2 ± 19.6 μm), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in trueness between single- and multiple-unit preparations for any of the intraoral scanners (P > 0.05). A statistically significant difference in the surface accuracy between single and multiple preparations was found for TR2, TD, OM, DW, XL, DL and MD (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The trueness and precision of intraoral scanners for scanning three-unit preparations were nearly the same as those for single-crown preparations; however, with the exception of OS, PS and TR3, the surface accuracy of single-crown preparations was significantly better than that for three-unit preparations.</p>","PeriodicalId":74983,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese journal of dental research : the official journal of the Scientific Section of the Chinese Stomatological Association (CSA)","volume":"25 3","pages":"215-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Chinese journal of dental research : the official journal of the Scientific Section of the Chinese Stomatological Association (CSA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.cjdr.b3317959","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of 10 intraoral scanners for single-crown and three-unit preparation models.

Methods: A maxillary partially edentulous model was fabricated. A dental cast scanner was used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) data. Ten intraoral scanners, namely Trios 2 (TR2; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), True Definition (TD; 3M, Saint Paul, MN, USA), CEREC AC Omnicam (OM; Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), Organical Scan Oral (OS; R+K, Berlin, Germany), PlanScan (PS; Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland), DWIOP (DW; Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada), Xianlin (XL; Hangzhou Xianlin, Hangzhou, China), DL-100 (DL; Guangzhou Longcheng, Guangzhou, China), Trios 3 (TR3; 3Shape) and i500 (MD; MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea) were used to obtain stereolithography data as test groups. Trueness, precision and surface accuracy were evaluated by deviation analysis using 3D image processing software. One tooth with a three-unit preparation for each test group was registered with the reference scan data, and the absolute distance from another tooth was calculated as the absolute accuracy. The data were analysed using a Mann-Whitney U test and Dunn-Bonferroni test (α = 0.05).

Results: The best trueness, precision and surface accuracy of scanning single crown preparation were recorded with TD (trueness 2.9 μm and precision 1.9 μm) and XL (surface accuracy 20.3 ± 2.9 μm). The best trueness, precision, surface accuracy and absolute accuracy of three-unit preparations were recorded with TD (2.6 μm), XL (1.9 μm), OM (27.1 ± 5.2 μm) and TR3 (79.2 ± 19.6 μm), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in trueness between single- and multiple-unit preparations for any of the intraoral scanners (P > 0.05). A statistically significant difference in the surface accuracy between single and multiple preparations was found for TR2, TD, OM, DW, XL, DL and MD (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: The trueness and precision of intraoral scanners for scanning three-unit preparations were nearly the same as those for single-crown preparations; however, with the exception of OS, PS and TR3, the surface accuracy of single-crown preparations was significantly better than that for three-unit preparations.

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
10种口腔内扫描仪对单冠和三单元固定义齿制备的扫描精度:体外研究。
目的:评价10种口腔内扫描仪用于单冠和三单元预备模型的准确性。方法:制作上颌部分无牙模型。使用铸型扫描仪获得标准镶嵌语言(STL)数据。10台口腔内扫描仪,即Trios 2 (TR2;3Shape,哥本哈根,丹麦),True Definition (TD;3M,圣保罗,明尼苏达州,美国),cerc AC Omnicam (OM;Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), organic Scan Oral;R+K,柏林,德国),PlanScan (PS;Planmeca,赫尔辛基,芬兰),DWIOP (DW;牙科之翼,蒙特利尔,加拿大),仙林(XL;杭州仙林,中国杭州),DL-100 (DL;广州龙城,中国广州),Trios 3 (TR3;3Shape)和i500 (MD;MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea)作为测试组获得立体光刻数据。利用三维图像处理软件进行偏差分析,评价其真性、精密度和表面精度。将每组三单元预备的一颗牙齿注册为参考扫描数据,计算与另一颗牙齿的绝对距离作为绝对精度。采用Mann-Whitney U检验和Dunn-Bonferroni检验(α = 0.05)对数据进行分析。结果:扫描单冠制备的真实度、精度和表面精度分别为TD(真实度2.9 μm、精度1.9 μm)和XL(表面精度20.3±2.9 μm)。其中,TD (2.6 μm)、XL (1.9 μm)、OM(27.1±5.2 μm)和TR3(79.2±19.6 μm)的准度、精密度、表面准确度和绝对准确度最高。对于任何一种口腔内扫描仪,单单位制剂和多单位制剂的准确率均无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。TR2、TD、OM、DW、XL、DL、MD单制剂与多制剂表面精度比较差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:口腔内扫描仪扫描三单元制剂的准确性与单冠制剂的准确性基本一致;但除OS、PS和TR3外,单冠制剂的表面精度明显优于三单元制剂。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Low-speed Drilling and Conventional Drilling in Implant Surgery: an Experimental Study. Localisation of the Infraorbital and Mental Foramen in Orthognathic Surgery: a CBCT Study. Orthodontic Treatment of an Adult Maxillomandibular Protrusion Case with Impacted Mandibular Second Molars Using the Physiologic Anchorage Spee-wire System: a Case Report. Prevalence and Characteristics of Taurodontism in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate Compared to the Healthy Group: a CBCT Study. SIRT2 Mediated Microtubule Acetylation in Osteogenic Differentiation.
×
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:481959085
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