用户在设计义齿时对计算机辅助设计软件的体验和满意度:一项多中心调查研究。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE International Journal of Computerized Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.3290/j.ijcd.b5582929
Thaw Thaw Win, Hang-Nga Mai, Shilpa Rana, Hyeong-Seob Kim, Ahran Pae, Seoung-Jin Hong, Younghoo Lee, Du-Hyeong Lee
{"title":"用户在设计义齿时对计算机辅助设计软件的体验和满意度:一项多中心调查研究。","authors":"Thaw Thaw Win, Hang-Nga Mai, Shilpa Rana, Hyeong-Seob Kim, Ahran Pae, Seoung-Jin Hong, Younghoo Lee, Du-Hyeong Lee","doi":"10.3290/j.ijcd.b5582929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The current study aimed to compare the responses and satisfaction reported by users with varying levels of experience when using different types of computer-aided design (CAD) software programs to design crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A questionnaire was used to evaluate user responses to five domains (software visibility, 3Dscanned data preparation, crown design and adjustment, finish line registration, and overall experience) of various CAD software programs. The study included 50 undergraduate dental students (inexperienced group) and 50 dentists or dental technicians from two hospitals (experienced group). The participants used four different CAD software programs (Meshmixer, Exocad, BlueSkyPlan, and Dentbird) to design crowns and recorded the features using the questionnaire. Statistical analyses included one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests to compare scores and verify the interaction between user response and experience.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>User evaluation scores in the domains of software visibility and 3D-scanned data preparation varied between software programs (P < 0.001), with Exocad being favored by the experienced group. When evaluating crown design and finish line registration, Dentbird and Exocad scored significantly higher than the other software in both groups as they offered automation of the process using deep learning (P < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA showed that prior experience of using CAD significantly affected the users' responses to all queries (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>User response and satisfaction varied with the type of CAD software used to design dental prostheses, with prior experience of using CAD playing a significant role. Automation of design functions can enhance user satisfaction with the software.</p>","PeriodicalId":48666,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","volume":"0 0","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"User experience of and satisfaction with computer-aided design software when designing dental prostheses: A multicenter survey study.\",\"authors\":\"Thaw Thaw Win, Hang-Nga Mai, Shilpa Rana, Hyeong-Seob Kim, Ahran Pae, Seoung-Jin Hong, Younghoo Lee, Du-Hyeong Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.ijcd.b5582929\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The current study aimed to compare the responses and satisfaction reported by users with varying levels of experience when using different types of computer-aided design (CAD) software programs to design crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A questionnaire was used to evaluate user responses to five domains (software visibility, 3Dscanned data preparation, crown design and adjustment, finish line registration, and overall experience) of various CAD software programs. The study included 50 undergraduate dental students (inexperienced group) and 50 dentists or dental technicians from two hospitals (experienced group). The participants used four different CAD software programs (Meshmixer, Exocad, BlueSkyPlan, and Dentbird) to design crowns and recorded the features using the questionnaire. Statistical analyses included one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests to compare scores and verify the interaction between user response and experience.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>User evaluation scores in the domains of software visibility and 3D-scanned data preparation varied between software programs (P < 0.001), with Exocad being favored by the experienced group. When evaluating crown design and finish line registration, Dentbird and Exocad scored significantly higher than the other software in both groups as they offered automation of the process using deep learning (P < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA showed that prior experience of using CAD significantly affected the users' responses to all queries (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>User response and satisfaction varied with the type of CAD software used to design dental prostheses, with prior experience of using CAD playing a significant role. Automation of design functions can enhance user satisfaction with the software.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48666,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ijcd.b5582929\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ijcd.b5582929","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较不同经验水平的用户在使用不同类型的计算机辅助设计(CAD)软件程序设计牙冠时的反应和满意度:使用调查问卷评估用户对各种 CAD 软件五个方面(软件可视性、三维扫描数据准备、牙冠设计和调整、终点线注册和总体体验)的反应。研究对象包括 50 名牙科本科生(无经验组)和来自两家医院的 50 名牙医或牙科技师(有经验组)。参与者使用四种不同的 CAD 软件(Meshmixer、Exocad、BlueSkyPlan 和 Dentbird)设计牙冠,并使用问卷记录特征。统计分析包括单因子和双因子方差分析(ANOVA)测试,以比较得分并验证用户反应与经验之间的交互作用:结果:不同软件程序在软件可视性和三维扫描数据准备方面的用户评价得分存在差异(P < 0.001),经验丰富的用户组更青睐 Exocad。在评估牙冠设计和终点线注册时,Dentbird 和 Exocad 的得分明显高于两组中的其他软件,因为它们利用深度学习实现了流程自动化(P < 0.001)。双向方差分析显示,使用 CAD 的先前经验会显著影响用户对所有问题的回答(P < 0.001):用户的反应和满意度随设计牙科修复体所使用的 CAD 软件类型的不同而变化,其中使用 CAD 的先前经验起着重要作用。设计功能的自动化可以提高用户对软件的满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
User experience of and satisfaction with computer-aided design software when designing dental prostheses: A multicenter survey study.

Aim: The current study aimed to compare the responses and satisfaction reported by users with varying levels of experience when using different types of computer-aided design (CAD) software programs to design crowns.

Materials and methods: A questionnaire was used to evaluate user responses to five domains (software visibility, 3Dscanned data preparation, crown design and adjustment, finish line registration, and overall experience) of various CAD software programs. The study included 50 undergraduate dental students (inexperienced group) and 50 dentists or dental technicians from two hospitals (experienced group). The participants used four different CAD software programs (Meshmixer, Exocad, BlueSkyPlan, and Dentbird) to design crowns and recorded the features using the questionnaire. Statistical analyses included one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests to compare scores and verify the interaction between user response and experience.

Result: User evaluation scores in the domains of software visibility and 3D-scanned data preparation varied between software programs (P < 0.001), with Exocad being favored by the experienced group. When evaluating crown design and finish line registration, Dentbird and Exocad scored significantly higher than the other software in both groups as they offered automation of the process using deep learning (P < 0.001). Two-way ANOVA showed that prior experience of using CAD significantly affected the users' responses to all queries (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: User response and satisfaction varied with the type of CAD software used to design dental prostheses, with prior experience of using CAD playing a significant role. Automation of design functions can enhance user satisfaction with the software.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: This journal explores the myriad innovations in the emerging field of computerized dentistry and how to integrate them into clinical practice. The bulk of the journal is devoted to the science of computer-assisted dentistry, with research articles and clinical reports on all aspects of computer-based diagnostic and therapeutic applications, with special emphasis placed on CAD/CAM and image-processing systems. Articles also address the use of computer-based communication to support patient care, assess the quality of care, and enhance clinical decision making. The journal is presented in a bilingual format, with each issue offering three types of articles: science-based, application-based, and national society reports.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Digital Manufacturing Methods on the Accuracy of Ceramic Crowns. Accuracy of imaging software usable in clinical settings for 3D rendering of tooth structures. Digital workflow in oral splint manufacturing. Deep learning for diagnostic charting on pediatric panoramic radiographs. Preformed customized healing abutments in a biologically oriented preparation technique procedure: a 3-year retrospective case-control study.
×
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