{"title":"通过口内扫描获得的 3D 打印模型和数字模型与口内测量得出的牙齿大小和牙弓尺寸的比较。","authors":"Suthinee Kanokpoonsin, Supakit Peanchitlertkajorn, Nuntinee-Nanthavanich Saengfai, Supatchai Boonpratham","doi":"10.4317/jced.61891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare measurements of tooth size and arch dimensions among those taken directly intraorally with those made on digital and 3D printed models produced by intraoral scanning.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Sixty-six participants were recruited. Intraoral tooth size and arch measurements were taken intraorally with a digital caliper. Digital impressions were taken with an iTero® intraoral scanner. The three-dimensional digital models were measured using a 3D diagnostics tool (OrthoCAD software). The same digital models were used to fabricate physical models using a resin 3D printer (Elegoo Saturn). The measurements were repeated on 3D printed models by using the digital caliper. The recorded parameters included mesiodistal tooth widths, transverse, and antero-posterior dimensions. All measurements were repeated to assess intra- and inter- examiner reliability. The validity of each measurement method was assessed by repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc pairwise comparisons (<i>p</i><0.5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean differences among three methods for all parameters were statistically significant (<i>p</i><.05) but were considered to be clinically insignificant, except for the upper intercanine width. Direct intraoral measurements tend to be smaller than the digital and 3D printed models. The ICCs values indicated excellent intra- and inter-examiner reliability which demonstrates high reproducibility for all measurements on all model types.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Direct intraoral measurements tend to be smaller than the digital and 3D printed models. However, the accuracy of measurements made directly intraorally, and on digital and 3D models from intraoral scans is clinically acceptable, except for the upper intercanine width. <b>Key words:</b>Tooth measurements, Accuracy, Dental models, 3D printing, Digital model.</p>","PeriodicalId":15376,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry","volume":"16 8","pages":"e1012-e1020"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Tooth Size and Arch Dimensions Among Measurements Taken Intraorally with 3D-Printed and Digital Models Obtained from Intraoral Scans.\",\"authors\":\"Suthinee Kanokpoonsin, Supakit Peanchitlertkajorn, Nuntinee-Nanthavanich Saengfai, Supatchai Boonpratham\",\"doi\":\"10.4317/jced.61891\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare measurements of tooth size and arch dimensions among those taken directly intraorally with those made on digital and 3D printed models produced by intraoral scanning.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Sixty-six participants were recruited. Intraoral tooth size and arch measurements were taken intraorally with a digital caliper. Digital impressions were taken with an iTero® intraoral scanner. The three-dimensional digital models were measured using a 3D diagnostics tool (OrthoCAD software). The same digital models were used to fabricate physical models using a resin 3D printer (Elegoo Saturn). The measurements were repeated on 3D printed models by using the digital caliper. The recorded parameters included mesiodistal tooth widths, transverse, and antero-posterior dimensions. All measurements were repeated to assess intra- and inter- examiner reliability. The validity of each measurement method was assessed by repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc pairwise comparisons (<i>p</i><0.5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean differences among three methods for all parameters were statistically significant (<i>p</i><.05) but were considered to be clinically insignificant, except for the upper intercanine width. Direct intraoral measurements tend to be smaller than the digital and 3D printed models. The ICCs values indicated excellent intra- and inter-examiner reliability which demonstrates high reproducibility for all measurements on all model types.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Direct intraoral measurements tend to be smaller than the digital and 3D printed models. However, the accuracy of measurements made directly intraorally, and on digital and 3D models from intraoral scans is clinically acceptable, except for the upper intercanine width. <b>Key words:</b>Tooth measurements, Accuracy, Dental models, 3D printing, Digital model.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"16 8\",\"pages\":\"e1012-e1020\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392450/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.61891\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.61891","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Comparison of Tooth Size and Arch Dimensions Among Measurements Taken Intraorally with 3D-Printed and Digital Models Obtained from Intraoral Scans.
Background: To compare measurements of tooth size and arch dimensions among those taken directly intraorally with those made on digital and 3D printed models produced by intraoral scanning.
Material and methods: Sixty-six participants were recruited. Intraoral tooth size and arch measurements were taken intraorally with a digital caliper. Digital impressions were taken with an iTero® intraoral scanner. The three-dimensional digital models were measured using a 3D diagnostics tool (OrthoCAD software). The same digital models were used to fabricate physical models using a resin 3D printer (Elegoo Saturn). The measurements were repeated on 3D printed models by using the digital caliper. The recorded parameters included mesiodistal tooth widths, transverse, and antero-posterior dimensions. All measurements were repeated to assess intra- and inter- examiner reliability. The validity of each measurement method was assessed by repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc pairwise comparisons (p<0.5).
Results: The mean differences among three methods for all parameters were statistically significant (p<.05) but were considered to be clinically insignificant, except for the upper intercanine width. Direct intraoral measurements tend to be smaller than the digital and 3D printed models. The ICCs values indicated excellent intra- and inter-examiner reliability which demonstrates high reproducibility for all measurements on all model types.
Conclusions: Direct intraoral measurements tend to be smaller than the digital and 3D printed models. However, the accuracy of measurements made directly intraorally, and on digital and 3D models from intraoral scans is clinically acceptable, except for the upper intercanine width. Key words:Tooth measurements, Accuracy, Dental models, 3D printing, Digital model.
期刊介绍:
Indexed in PUBMED, PubMed Central® (PMC) since 2012 and SCOPUSJournal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry is an Open Access (free access on-line) - http://www.medicinaoral.com/odo/indice.htm. The aim of the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry is: - Periodontology - Community and Preventive Dentistry - Esthetic Dentistry - Biomaterials and Bioengineering in Dentistry - Operative Dentistry and Endodontics - Prosthetic Dentistry - Orthodontics - Oral Medicine and Pathology - Odontostomatology for the disabled or special patients - Oral Surgery