{"title":"超越表面：口内扫描仪在龈下构型扫描中的比较研究。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.dental.2024.06.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of three intraoral scanners (CEREC Primescan, TRIOS, CEREC Omnicam) and a lab scanner (inEosX5) assessing their precision in simulating subgingival tooth preparations.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Utilizing a dental simulation mannequin with a 3D-printed resin structure, 100 structures with depths ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 mm were created within a square mimicking a rectangular tank surface. Four scanner groups (A-D) and five subgroups were established. Two digitization methods, a customized parallelometer and an intraoral simulation, were applied, ensuring a standardized scanning sequence. Trueness was evaluated by comparing CAD-calculated surface areas with actual dimensions, and qualitative trueness analysis was conducted using MeshLab. Surface areas were computed using the formula SA = 2lw + 2lh + 2wh. Statistical analyses, including Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Kolmogorov–Smirnoff and Levene’s tests, three-way ANOVA, and paired sample t-tests, elucidated relationships and differences (a=0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A robust correlation (r = 0.850, p < 0.001) between intraoral scanner choice and scanned area depth was found. Inverse correlations were noted for experimental methods. Three-way ANOVA demonstrated significant scanner-depth interaction (F(12,760) = 760.801, p < 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>Emphasizing high-resolution sensors and advanced technologies, the study underscores the optimal choice for subgingival digitization, acknowledging variations among scanners.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":298,"journal":{"name":"Dental Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the surface: A comparative study of intraoral scanners in subgingival configuration scanning\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.dental.2024.06.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of three intraoral scanners (CEREC Primescan, TRIOS, CEREC Omnicam) and a lab scanner (inEosX5) assessing their precision in simulating subgingival tooth preparations.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Utilizing a dental simulation mannequin with a 3D-printed resin structure, 100 structures with depths ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 mm were created within a square mimicking a rectangular tank surface. Four scanner groups (A-D) and five subgroups were established. Two digitization methods, a customized parallelometer and an intraoral simulation, were applied, ensuring a standardized scanning sequence. Trueness was evaluated by comparing CAD-calculated surface areas with actual dimensions, and qualitative trueness analysis was conducted using MeshLab. Surface areas were computed using the formula SA = 2lw + 2lh + 2wh. Statistical analyses, including Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Kolmogorov–Smirnoff and Levene’s tests, three-way ANOVA, and paired sample t-tests, elucidated relationships and differences (a=0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A robust correlation (r = 0.850, p < 0.001) between intraoral scanner choice and scanned area depth was found. Inverse correlations were noted for experimental methods. Three-way ANOVA demonstrated significant scanner-depth interaction (F(12,760) = 760.801, p < 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>Emphasizing high-resolution sensors and advanced technologies, the study underscores the optimal choice for subgingival digitization, acknowledging variations among scanners.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dental Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dental Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0109564124001362\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"Dental Materials","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0109564124001362","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究目的：本研究对三种口内扫描仪（CEREC Primescan、TRIOS、CEREC Omnicam）和一种实验室扫描仪（inEosX5）进行了全面的比较分析，评估它们在模拟龈下牙预备方面的精确度：利用带有 3D 打印树脂结构的牙科模拟人体模型，在模拟矩形槽表面的正方形内创建了 100 个深度为 0.5 至 4.0 毫米的结构。共设立了四个扫描仪组（A-D）和五个子组。应用了两种数字化方法，一种是定制的平行计，另一种是口内模拟，以确保标准化的扫描顺序。通过比较 CAD 计算的表面积和实际尺寸来评估真实度，并使用 MeshLab 对真实度进行定性分析。表面积的计算公式为 SA = 2lw + 2lh + 2wh。统计分析包括皮尔逊相关系数、Kolmogorov-Smirnoff 和 Levene 检验、三向方差分析和配对样本 t 检验，以阐明关系和差异（a=0.05）：结果：强相关性（r = 0.850，p 显著性：研究强调了高分辨率传感器和先进技术，强调了龈下数字化的最佳选择，同时承认了扫描仪之间的差异。
Beyond the surface: A comparative study of intraoral scanners in subgingival configuration scanning
Objectives
This study conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of three intraoral scanners (CEREC Primescan, TRIOS, CEREC Omnicam) and a lab scanner (inEosX5) assessing their precision in simulating subgingival tooth preparations.
Methods
Utilizing a dental simulation mannequin with a 3D-printed resin structure, 100 structures with depths ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 mm were created within a square mimicking a rectangular tank surface. Four scanner groups (A-D) and five subgroups were established. Two digitization methods, a customized parallelometer and an intraoral simulation, were applied, ensuring a standardized scanning sequence. Trueness was evaluated by comparing CAD-calculated surface areas with actual dimensions, and qualitative trueness analysis was conducted using MeshLab. Surface areas were computed using the formula SA = 2lw + 2lh + 2wh. Statistical analyses, including Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Kolmogorov–Smirnoff and Levene’s tests, three-way ANOVA, and paired sample t-tests, elucidated relationships and differences (a=0.05).
Results
A robust correlation (r = 0.850, p < 0.001) between intraoral scanner choice and scanned area depth was found. Inverse correlations were noted for experimental methods. Three-way ANOVA demonstrated significant scanner-depth interaction (F(12,760) = 760.801, p < 0.001).
Significance
Emphasizing high-resolution sensors and advanced technologies, the study underscores the optimal choice for subgingival digitization, acknowledging variations among scanners.
期刊介绍：
Dental Materials publishes original research, review articles, and short communications.
Academy of Dental Materials members click here to register for free access to Dental Materials online.
The principal aim of Dental Materials is to promote rapid communication of scientific information between academia, industry, and the dental practitioner. Original Manuscripts on clinical and laboratory research of basic and applied character which focus on the properties or performance of dental materials or the reaction of host tissues to materials are given priority publication. Other acceptable topics include application technology in clinical dentistry and dental laboratory technology.
Comprehensive reviews and editorial commentaries on pertinent subjects will be considered.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
