口内扫描仪反向扫描技术与传统印模技术的比较。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.012
Pavel Hyspler, Petra Urbanová, Tatjana Dostalova
{"title":"口内扫描仪反向扫描技术与传统印模技术的比较。","authors":"Pavel Hyspler, Petra Urbanová, Tatjana Dostalova","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>Intraoral scanners have many advantages but have limited applicability for extensive tooth-supported or implant-supported prostheses because of merging errors.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the reverse scan technique (RST) with an intraoral scanner using the traditional impression technique both in vitro and in vivo.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A participant was scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner. Then, the RST was performed 3 times in the oral cavity. One of the intraoral scans was chosen to make a 3-dimensionally (3D) printed cast. The printed cast was scanned 10 times with a laboratory scanner (Control cast) and 10 times with an intraoral scanner (IOS cast). The RST was performed 10 times (RST cast), and 10 dental impressions were made using the traditional splinted technique on the same cast (Impression cast). A laboratory scanner was used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) files of the tested methods. A newly developed pyramid replacement method was used to evaluate accuracy. This method uses modified virtual abutments with integrated pyramids that determine the exact measurement points. The obtained data were processed using Procrustes analysis and statistically analyzed (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Procrustes distances were Control cast 0 to 0.4 µm (median 0.3 µm), RST cast 5.6 to 6.9 µm (median 6.2 µm), Impression cast 5.4 to 7.1 µm (median 6.5 µm), and IOS cast group 4.5 to 41.2 µm (median 5.8 µm). In the participant, the Procrustes distance values were RST intraoral 9.5 to 9.6 µm (median 9.5 µm) and IOS intraoral 5.7 to 18.3 µm (median 10.9 µm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reverse scan technique is an acceptable fully digital replacement for traditional impression making. Using an IOS to obtain a 3D cast of an implant-supported interim prosthesis with scannable implant analogs is not recommended. It is more beneficial to use laboratory scanners rather than intraoral scanners for the digitization of precision improvement devices such as bonded interim implant-supported prostheses with a scannable implant analog or solid index.</p>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the reverse scan technique with an intraoral scanner and the traditional impression technique.\",\"authors\":\"Pavel Hyspler, Petra Urbanová, Tatjana Dostalova\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>Intraoral scanners have many advantages but have limited applicability for extensive tooth-supported or implant-supported prostheses because of merging errors.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the reverse scan technique (RST) with an intraoral scanner using the traditional impression technique both in vitro and in vivo.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A participant was scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner. Then, the RST was performed 3 times in the oral cavity. One of the intraoral scans was chosen to make a 3-dimensionally (3D) printed cast. The printed cast was scanned 10 times with a laboratory scanner (Control cast) and 10 times with an intraoral scanner (IOS cast). The RST was performed 10 times (RST cast), and 10 dental impressions were made using the traditional splinted technique on the same cast (Impression cast). A laboratory scanner was used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) files of the tested methods. A newly developed pyramid replacement method was used to evaluate accuracy. This method uses modified virtual abutments with integrated pyramids that determine the exact measurement points. The obtained data were processed using Procrustes analysis and statistically analyzed (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Procrustes distances were Control cast 0 to 0.4 µm (median 0.3 µm), RST cast 5.6 to 6.9 µm (median 6.2 µm), Impression cast 5.4 to 7.1 µm (median 6.5 µm), and IOS cast group 4.5 to 41.2 µm (median 5.8 µm). In the participant, the Procrustes distance values were RST intraoral 9.5 to 9.6 µm (median 9.5 µm) and IOS intraoral 5.7 to 18.3 µm (median 10.9 µm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reverse scan technique is an acceptable fully digital replacement for traditional impression making. Using an IOS to obtain a 3D cast of an implant-supported interim prosthesis with scannable implant analogs is not recommended. It is more beneficial to use laboratory scanners rather than intraoral scanners for the digitization of precision improvement devices such as bonded interim implant-supported prostheses with a scannable implant analog or solid index.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.012\",\"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":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.012","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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

问题陈述:口内扫描仪有很多优点,但由于合并误差的原因,对于大面积牙齿支撑或种植体支撑修复体的适用性有限。目的:本研究的目的是比较反向扫描技术(RST)与口内扫描仪使用传统印模技术在体外和体内的效果:一名参与者使用口内扫描仪扫描了 10 次。然后在口腔内进行 3 次反向扫描。选择其中一次口内扫描来制作三维(3D)打印石膏。用实验室扫描仪(对照石膏)和口内扫描仪(IOS 石膏)分别对打印石膏进行了 10 次扫描。进行了 10 次 RST(RST 模型),并在同一模型上使用传统夹板技术制作了 10 个牙科印模(印模模型)。使用实验室扫描仪获取测试方法的标准细分语言(STL)文件。新开发的金字塔替代法用于评估精确度。该方法使用改进的虚拟基台和集成的金字塔来确定精确的测量点。获得的数据使用 Procrustes 分析法进行处理,并进行统计分析(α=.05):Procrustes 距离分别为 Control cast 0 至 0.4 µm(中位数 0.3 µm),RST cast 5.6 至 6.9 µm(中位数 6.2 µm),Impression cast 5.4 至 7.1 µm(中位数 6.5 µm),IOS cast 组 4.5 至 41.2 µm(中位数 5.8 µm)。参试者的普氏距离值为:RST口内9.5至9.6微米(中位数9.5微米),IOS口内5.7至18.3微米(中位数10.9微米):结论:反向扫描技术是一种可接受的全数字化印模制作方法。不建议使用IOS获取种植体支持的临时修复体的三维模型,并使用可扫描的种植体模拟。使用技工室扫描仪而不是口内扫描仪对精密改良装置(如带有可扫描种植体模拟或实体指数的粘结临时种植体)进行数字化更有益处。
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
Comparison of the reverse scan technique with an intraoral scanner and the traditional impression technique.

Statement of problem: Intraoral scanners have many advantages but have limited applicability for extensive tooth-supported or implant-supported prostheses because of merging errors.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the reverse scan technique (RST) with an intraoral scanner using the traditional impression technique both in vitro and in vivo.

Material and methods: A participant was scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner. Then, the RST was performed 3 times in the oral cavity. One of the intraoral scans was chosen to make a 3-dimensionally (3D) printed cast. The printed cast was scanned 10 times with a laboratory scanner (Control cast) and 10 times with an intraoral scanner (IOS cast). The RST was performed 10 times (RST cast), and 10 dental impressions were made using the traditional splinted technique on the same cast (Impression cast). A laboratory scanner was used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) files of the tested methods. A newly developed pyramid replacement method was used to evaluate accuracy. This method uses modified virtual abutments with integrated pyramids that determine the exact measurement points. The obtained data were processed using Procrustes analysis and statistically analyzed (α=.05).

Results: The Procrustes distances were Control cast 0 to 0.4 µm (median 0.3 µm), RST cast 5.6 to 6.9 µm (median 6.2 µm), Impression cast 5.4 to 7.1 µm (median 6.5 µm), and IOS cast group 4.5 to 41.2 µm (median 5.8 µm). In the participant, the Procrustes distance values were RST intraoral 9.5 to 9.6 µm (median 9.5 µm) and IOS intraoral 5.7 to 18.3 µm (median 10.9 µm).

Conclusions: The reverse scan technique is an acceptable fully digital replacement for traditional impression making. Using an IOS to obtain a 3D cast of an implant-supported interim prosthesis with scannable implant analogs is not recommended. It is more beneficial to use laboratory scanners rather than intraoral scanners for the digitization of precision improvement devices such as bonded interim implant-supported prostheses with a scannable implant analog or solid index.

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
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
13.00%
发文量
599
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.
期刊最新文献
Effect of machining method and margin design on the accuracy and margin quality of monolithic zirconia crowns. A digital workflow for recording implant positions and jaw relation for implant-supported complete arch prostheses. Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry. Prosthodontic rehabilitation of a patient after mucormycosis using a digitally fabricated hollow complete denture with 3D printed intramucosal inserts. Unconventional digital dentures: Overcoming software challenges and integrating digital workflows into conventional techniques.
×
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