Junying Li, Zhaozhao Chen, Paolo Nava, Shengtao Yang, Javier Calatrava, Hom-Lay Wang
{"title":"用于全牙弓种植体印模的校准口内扫描协议(CISP):与传统印模、口内扫描和使用扫描辅助工具的口内扫描进行体外比较。","authors":"Junying Li, Zhaozhao Chen, Paolo Nava, Shengtao Yang, Javier Calatrava, Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"10.1111/cid.13338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess a newly developed intraoral scan protocol in enhancing the accuracy of complete-arch implant impressions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Four impression approaches were applied to the same maxillary edentulous model with 6 implants: (1) intraoral scan (IOS), (2) intraoral scan with scan aid (IOS-SA), (3) calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP), and (4) conventional splinted open-tray impression (CONV). Each approach was repeated 10 times, and a direct scan of the model with a desktop scanner was used as a reference model. The alignment of scans and the reference model was conducted by two methods: (a) aligning all scan bodies to evaluate the overall fit, and (b) aligning the first and second scan bodies to simulate the Sheffield fit test for passive fitting of multiple implant-supported prostheses. Linear deviations from the reference model (trueness) and within each group (precision) were analyzed using Python scripts.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>When aligned by all scan bodies, the CISP group exhibited comparable mean trueness (38.33 μm) and precision (45.97 μm) to the CONV group (44.30 and 47.92 μm respectively), both of which significantly outperformed the IOS group (86.82 and 83.17 μm, respectively). Furthermore, in the virtual Sheffield fit test, the CISP group achieved the highest levels of mean trueness at the end span (121.7 μm), making a linear deviation reduction of 36.7%, 60%, and 41.4% when compared to the CONV, the IOS, and the IOS-SA groups, respectively. Moreover, the CISP group (104.3 μm) displayed a remarkable 65, 182, and 86 μm advantage in precision over the CONV, IOS, and IOS-SA groups, respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>CISP demonstrated comparable accuracy to the gold standard, the conventional splinted open-tray impression. Furthermore, it excelled in the virtual passive fitting test.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"26 5","pages":"879-888"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.13338","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP) for full-arch implant impressions: An in vitro comparison to conventional impression, intraoral scan, and intraoral scan with scan-aid\",\"authors\":\"Junying Li, Zhaozhao Chen, Paolo Nava, Shengtao Yang, Javier Calatrava, Hom-Lay Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.13338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To assess a newly developed intraoral scan protocol in enhancing the accuracy of complete-arch implant impressions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Four impression approaches were applied to the same maxillary edentulous model with 6 implants: (1) intraoral scan (IOS), (2) intraoral scan with scan aid (IOS-SA), (3) calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP), and (4) conventional splinted open-tray impression (CONV). Each approach was repeated 10 times, and a direct scan of the model with a desktop scanner was used as a reference model. The alignment of scans and the reference model was conducted by two methods: (a) aligning all scan bodies to evaluate the overall fit, and (b) aligning the first and second scan bodies to simulate the Sheffield fit test for passive fitting of multiple implant-supported prostheses. Linear deviations from the reference model (trueness) and within each group (precision) were analyzed using Python scripts.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>When aligned by all scan bodies, the CISP group exhibited comparable mean trueness (38.33 μm) and precision (45.97 μm) to the CONV group (44.30 and 47.92 μm respectively), both of which significantly outperformed the IOS group (86.82 and 83.17 μm, respectively). Furthermore, in the virtual Sheffield fit test, the CISP group achieved the highest levels of mean trueness at the end span (121.7 μm), making a linear deviation reduction of 36.7%, 60%, and 41.4% when compared to the CONV, the IOS, and the IOS-SA groups, respectively. Moreover, the CISP group (104.3 μm) displayed a remarkable 65, 182, and 86 μm advantage in precision over the CONV, IOS, and IOS-SA groups, respectively.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>CISP demonstrated comparable accuracy to the gold standard, the conventional splinted open-tray impression. Furthermore, it excelled in the virtual passive fitting test.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"26 5\",\"pages\":\"879-888\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.13338\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13338\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13338","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP) for full-arch implant impressions: An in vitro comparison to conventional impression, intraoral scan, and intraoral scan with scan-aid
Objective
To assess a newly developed intraoral scan protocol in enhancing the accuracy of complete-arch implant impressions.
Materials and Methods
Four impression approaches were applied to the same maxillary edentulous model with 6 implants: (1) intraoral scan (IOS), (2) intraoral scan with scan aid (IOS-SA), (3) calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP), and (4) conventional splinted open-tray impression (CONV). Each approach was repeated 10 times, and a direct scan of the model with a desktop scanner was used as a reference model. The alignment of scans and the reference model was conducted by two methods: (a) aligning all scan bodies to evaluate the overall fit, and (b) aligning the first and second scan bodies to simulate the Sheffield fit test for passive fitting of multiple implant-supported prostheses. Linear deviations from the reference model (trueness) and within each group (precision) were analyzed using Python scripts.
Results
When aligned by all scan bodies, the CISP group exhibited comparable mean trueness (38.33 μm) and precision (45.97 μm) to the CONV group (44.30 and 47.92 μm respectively), both of which significantly outperformed the IOS group (86.82 and 83.17 μm, respectively). Furthermore, in the virtual Sheffield fit test, the CISP group achieved the highest levels of mean trueness at the end span (121.7 μm), making a linear deviation reduction of 36.7%, 60%, and 41.4% when compared to the CONV, the IOS, and the IOS-SA groups, respectively. Moreover, the CISP group (104.3 μm) displayed a remarkable 65, 182, and 86 μm advantage in precision over the CONV, IOS, and IOS-SA groups, respectively.
Conclusion
CISP demonstrated comparable accuracy to the gold standard, the conventional splinted open-tray impression. Furthermore, it excelled in the virtual passive fitting test.
期刊介绍:
The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal.
The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to:
New scientific developments relating to bone
Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues
Computer aided implant designs
Computer aided prosthetic designs
Immediate implant loading
Immediate implant placement
Materials relating to bone induction and conduction
New surgical methods relating to implant placement
New materials and methods relating to implant restorations
Methods for determining implant stability
A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.