Mahmoud E. Elbashti , Adrien Naveau , Benedikt Spies , Anna-Lena Hillebrecht , Samir Abou-Ayash , Martin Schimmel , Juan López-Quiles , Pedro Molinero-Mourelle
{"title":"口腔内扫描仪在颌骨切除缺损外露颧骨原位数字化中的可行性、准确性和精确性:体外三维对比研究。","authors":"Mahmoud E. Elbashti , Adrien Naveau , Benedikt Spies , Anna-Lena Hillebrecht , Samir Abou-Ayash , Martin Schimmel , Juan López-Quiles , Pedro Molinero-Mourelle","doi":"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To in-vitro evaluate the feasibility and accuracy (trueness and precision) of various intraoral scanners (IOS) to digitize maxillectomy defect models with exposed zygomatic implants in situ.</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>Six partially edentulous and edentulous maxillectomy defect models with 2 zygomatic implants each were obtained. References scans were obatined by using a laboratory scanner (inEos X5; Dentsply Sirona). Three IOS, Trios 3, Trios 4 (3Shape A/S), and Primescan (Dentsply Sirona) were used first to digitize the entire model including implants and then to only scan the exposed part of zygomatic implants. The feasibility was assessed by evaluating the intraoral scanner's ability to accurately capture the maxillectomy defects and zygomatic implants, compared to a reference standard. Trueness and precision were evaluated using software's global best-fit alignment (GOM Inspect, GOM GmbH). Multifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean 3D deviation according to different scanners, groups, and model types. The significance level used in the analyses was 5 % (α=0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All scanners showed adequate feasibility to scan the entire maxillectomy defects and exposed implants regardless of the structural complexity. The results of trueness showed that Primescan has the smallest 3D deviations (0.0252 mm) followed by Trios 4 (0,0275 mm), and then Trios 3 (0.0318 mm) (<em>p</em> < 0.001). The results of precision showed that Primescan had the smallest 3D deviations (0.0026 mm) followed by Trios 3 (0,0080 mm), and then Trios 4 (0,0097 mm) (<em>p</em> < 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Intraoral scanners differ in feasibility, trueness and accuracy of all scans, with Primescan providing the best combination of feasibility, trueness and accuracy, followed by Trios 4 and Trios 3.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Significance</h3><div>Scanning maxillectomy defects with various exposed zygomatic implants can be feasible and accurate using intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Trios 4, and Primescan). The use of intraoral scanners for implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of maxillectomy defect can be a feasible alternative that can improve and simplify the workflow.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry","volume":"153 ","pages":"Article 105557"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility, trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in digitizing maxillectomy defects with exposed zygomatic implants in situ: An in vitro 3D comparative study\",\"authors\":\"Mahmoud E. Elbashti , Adrien Naveau , Benedikt Spies , Anna-Lena Hillebrecht , Samir Abou-Ayash , Martin Schimmel , Juan López-Quiles , Pedro Molinero-Mourelle\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105557\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To in-vitro evaluate the feasibility and accuracy (trueness and precision) of various intraoral scanners (IOS) to digitize maxillectomy defect models with exposed zygomatic implants in situ.</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>Six partially edentulous and edentulous maxillectomy defect models with 2 zygomatic implants each were obtained. References scans were obatined by using a laboratory scanner (inEos X5; Dentsply Sirona). Three IOS, Trios 3, Trios 4 (3Shape A/S), and Primescan (Dentsply Sirona) were used first to digitize the entire model including implants and then to only scan the exposed part of zygomatic implants. The feasibility was assessed by evaluating the intraoral scanner's ability to accurately capture the maxillectomy defects and zygomatic implants, compared to a reference standard. Trueness and precision were evaluated using software's global best-fit alignment (GOM Inspect, GOM GmbH). Multifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean 3D deviation according to different scanners, groups, and model types. The significance level used in the analyses was 5 % (α=0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All scanners showed adequate feasibility to scan the entire maxillectomy defects and exposed implants regardless of the structural complexity. The results of trueness showed that Primescan has the smallest 3D deviations (0.0252 mm) followed by Trios 4 (0,0275 mm), and then Trios 3 (0.0318 mm) (<em>p</em> < 0.001). The results of precision showed that Primescan had the smallest 3D deviations (0.0026 mm) followed by Trios 3 (0,0080 mm), and then Trios 4 (0,0097 mm) (<em>p</em> < 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Intraoral scanners differ in feasibility, trueness and accuracy of all scans, with Primescan providing the best combination of feasibility, trueness and accuracy, followed by Trios 4 and Trios 3.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Significance</h3><div>Scanning maxillectomy defects with various exposed zygomatic implants can be feasible and accurate using intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Trios 4, and Primescan). The use of intraoral scanners for implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of maxillectomy defect can be a feasible alternative that can improve and simplify the workflow.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"volume\":\"153 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105557\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030057122500003X\",\"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 dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030057122500003X","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}
Feasibility, trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in digitizing maxillectomy defects with exposed zygomatic implants in situ: An in vitro 3D comparative study
Objectives
To in-vitro evaluate the feasibility and accuracy (trueness and precision) of various intraoral scanners (IOS) to digitize maxillectomy defect models with exposed zygomatic implants in situ.
Material and Methods
Six partially edentulous and edentulous maxillectomy defect models with 2 zygomatic implants each were obtained. References scans were obatined by using a laboratory scanner (inEos X5; Dentsply Sirona). Three IOS, Trios 3, Trios 4 (3Shape A/S), and Primescan (Dentsply Sirona) were used first to digitize the entire model including implants and then to only scan the exposed part of zygomatic implants. The feasibility was assessed by evaluating the intraoral scanner's ability to accurately capture the maxillectomy defects and zygomatic implants, compared to a reference standard. Trueness and precision were evaluated using software's global best-fit alignment (GOM Inspect, GOM GmbH). Multifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean 3D deviation according to different scanners, groups, and model types. The significance level used in the analyses was 5 % (α=0.05).
Results
All scanners showed adequate feasibility to scan the entire maxillectomy defects and exposed implants regardless of the structural complexity. The results of trueness showed that Primescan has the smallest 3D deviations (0.0252 mm) followed by Trios 4 (0,0275 mm), and then Trios 3 (0.0318 mm) (p < 0.001). The results of precision showed that Primescan had the smallest 3D deviations (0.0026 mm) followed by Trios 3 (0,0080 mm), and then Trios 4 (0,0097 mm) (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Intraoral scanners differ in feasibility, trueness and accuracy of all scans, with Primescan providing the best combination of feasibility, trueness and accuracy, followed by Trios 4 and Trios 3.
Clinical Significance
Scanning maxillectomy defects with various exposed zygomatic implants can be feasible and accurate using intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Trios 4, and Primescan). The use of intraoral scanners for implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of maxillectomy defect can be a feasible alternative that can improve and simplify the workflow.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Dentistry has an open access mirror journal The Journal of Dentistry: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review.
The Journal of Dentistry is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis.
Topics covered include the management of dental disease, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research.
The Journal of Dentistry will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.