Accuracy, time efficiency and operator preference in edentulous arch scanning: a preliminary report:

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Osseointegration Pub Date : 2021-09-29 DOI:10.23805/JO.2021.13.03.10
L. D'arienzo, A. Casucci, M. Ferrari, R. Madeo
{"title":"Accuracy, time efficiency and operator preference in edentulous arch scanning: a preliminary report:","authors":"L. D'arienzo, A. Casucci, M. Ferrari, R. Madeo","doi":"10.23805/JO.2021.13.03.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim The present in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS) in a completely edentulous arches and analyzed the influence of operator experience on accuracy, also time efficiency and operator’s difficulty perception related to IOS procedures. \nMaterials and methods Twenty participants were enrolled for the digital scanning procedure of a maxillary edentulous metal model using an intraoral scanner, Aadva iOS100 (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan). Participants were divided in two groups according to their experience in intraoral scanning procedures: Inexpert (InE group) without any experience in dental scanning (n=10) and Experts (E group) composed of operators with at least 3 year of scanning experience with IOS (n=5). Five IOS procedures were repeated for each operator and exported as a correspondent Stereolithography (STL) file. The same model was scanned with a laboratory scanner (LSS) (D1000 3 Shape Copenaghen Denmark), obtaining an STL file of the model which has been used as a reference. Accuracy of IOS were evaluated using a surface adaptation software (Geomagic Design X). The time required for each scanning procedure, and the perceived difficulty level were recorded for all the participants. The data obtained about accuracy, scanning time and difficulty perceived were compared between the two groups using the T-test for independent samples. The same variables were also correlated with each other using the Pearson’s coefficient. \nResults The highest trueness was observed for the scans provided by E participants. Precision ranged from 95,89 to 79,36 respectively in E and InE operators. For both trueness and precision there were significant differences between the two groups (p<0.05). Regarding scanning time, the more experienced operators were faster than inexpert ones with a significant difference (p<0.001). The two groups reported also differences in terms of difficulty perceived. Pearson’s correlation reported for time scanning a significant correlation with trueness p<0.001 and precision p<0.05 and between difficulty perceived and trueness p<0.05. \nConclusions Digital impressions accuracy was different in E and InE operators as well as the scanning times, that was correlated with both trueness and precision.","PeriodicalId":42724,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osseointegration","volume":"11 1","pages":"164-170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osseointegration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2021.13.03.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aim The present in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS) in a completely edentulous arches and analyzed the influence of operator experience on accuracy, also time efficiency and operator’s difficulty perception related to IOS procedures. Materials and methods Twenty participants were enrolled for the digital scanning procedure of a maxillary edentulous metal model using an intraoral scanner, Aadva iOS100 (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan). Participants were divided in two groups according to their experience in intraoral scanning procedures: Inexpert (InE group) without any experience in dental scanning (n=10) and Experts (E group) composed of operators with at least 3 year of scanning experience with IOS (n=5). Five IOS procedures were repeated for each operator and exported as a correspondent Stereolithography (STL) file. The same model was scanned with a laboratory scanner (LSS) (D1000 3 Shape Copenaghen Denmark), obtaining an STL file of the model which has been used as a reference. Accuracy of IOS were evaluated using a surface adaptation software (Geomagic Design X). The time required for each scanning procedure, and the perceived difficulty level were recorded for all the participants. The data obtained about accuracy, scanning time and difficulty perceived were compared between the two groups using the T-test for independent samples. The same variables were also correlated with each other using the Pearson’s coefficient. Results The highest trueness was observed for the scans provided by E participants. Precision ranged from 95,89 to 79,36 respectively in E and InE operators. For both trueness and precision there were significant differences between the two groups (p<0.05). Regarding scanning time, the more experienced operators were faster than inexpert ones with a significant difference (p<0.001). The two groups reported also differences in terms of difficulty perceived. Pearson’s correlation reported for time scanning a significant correlation with trueness p<0.001 and precision p<0.05 and between difficulty perceived and trueness p<0.05. Conclusions Digital impressions accuracy was different in E and InE operators as well as the scanning times, that was correlated with both trueness and precision.
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
无牙弓扫描的准确性、时效性与操作者偏好初探
目的评价全无牙弓口腔内扫描(IOS)的准确性,分析操作经验对准确性、时间效率和操作难度感知的影响。材料与方法20名受试者采用Aadva iOS100 (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan)口内扫描仪对上颌无牙金属模型进行数字扫描。根据参与者的口腔内扫描经验分为两组:没有任何牙科扫描经验的非专家(InE组)(n=10)和由至少3年IOS扫描经验的操作员组成的专家(E组)(n=5)。每个操作人员重复5个IOS程序,并导出为相应的立体光刻(STL)文件。用实验室扫描仪(LSS) (D1000 3 Shape copenhagen Denmark)对同一模型进行扫描,获得模型的STL文件,作为参考。使用表面适应软件(Geomagic Design X)评估IOS的准确性。记录所有参与者每次扫描过程所需的时间和感知难度水平。采用独立样本t检验比较两组扫描准确率、扫描时间和感知难度数据。同样的变量也使用皮尔逊系数相互关联。结果由E参与者提供的扫描的准确率最高。E和InE运算符的精度范围分别为95,89到79,36。两组的正确率和精密度比较,差异均有统计学意义(p<0.05)。在扫描时间方面,经验丰富的操作人员比不熟练的操作人员更快,差异有统计学意义(p<0.001)。两组在感知难度方面也存在差异。时间扫描与正确率(p<0.001)和准确率(p<0.05)显著相关,感知困难与正确率(p<0.05)显著相关。结论E、InE操作者的数字印模准确度及扫描次数不同,与印模的真实度和精度相关。
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
Journal of Osseointegration
Journal of Osseointegration DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Sealing ability of a bioceramic sealer used in combination with cold and warm obturation techniques Screw-retained restoration of a facially shifted postextraction implant in the esthetic zone with immediate provisionalization Evaluation of marginal bone loss around SLActive implants by CBCT using different implant dimensions and surgical approaches: A clinical and radiological prospective study A minimally invasive approach to osseo-disintegrate implants via thermal energy. An in-vivo pilot study Biomechanical behavior of the dental implant macrodesign in mandibular implant-supported overdentures
×
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