{"title":"评估不同牙芯基底对口内扫描仪精度的影响。","authors":"Maryam Khoshkhahesh, Shabnam Enteghad, Kiana Aghasadeghi, Mitra Farzin, Masumeh Taghva, Seyed Ali Mosadad","doi":"10.1002/cre2.899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni-Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Trios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (<i>p</i> value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (<i>p</i> value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>For Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10203,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cre2.899","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners\",\"authors\":\"Maryam Khoshkhahesh, Shabnam Enteghad, Kiana Aghasadeghi, Mitra Farzin, Masumeh Taghva, Seyed Ali Mosadad\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cre2.899\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni-Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Trios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (<i>p</i> value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (<i>p</i> value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>For Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cre2.899\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.899\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.899","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners
Background
The aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions.
Material and Methods
A customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni-Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners.
Results
Trios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (p value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (p value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate.
Conclusion
For Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.
期刊介绍:
Clinical and Experimental Dental Research aims to provide open access peer-reviewed publications of high scientific quality representing original clinical, diagnostic or experimental work within all disciplines and fields of oral medicine and dentistry. The scope of Clinical and Experimental Dental Research comprises original research material on the anatomy, physiology and pathology of oro-facial, oro-pharyngeal and maxillofacial tissues, and functions and dysfunctions within the stomatognathic system, and the epidemiology, aetiology, prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and therapy of diseases and conditions that have an effect on the homeostasis of the mouth, jaws, and closely associated structures, as well as the healing and regeneration and the clinical aspects of replacement of hard and soft tissues with biomaterials, and the rehabilitation of stomatognathic functions. Studies that bring new knowledge on how to advance health on the individual or public health levels, including interactions between oral and general health and ill-health are welcome.