IF 2.9 3区 生物学Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCESPeerJPub Date : 2025-02-26eCollection Date: 2025-01-01DOI:10.7717/peerj.19075
Yousif A Al-Dulaijan, Haidar Alalawi, Mohammed M Gad, Faisal D Al-Qarni, Shaimaa M Fouda, Passent Ellakany
{"title":"与传统印模相比,全口义齿数码印模的真实度和精确度:体外研究。","authors":"Yousif A Al-Dulaijan, Haidar Alalawi, Mohammed M Gad, Faisal D Al-Qarni, Shaimaa M Fouda, Passent Ellakany","doi":"10.7717/peerj.19075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the precision and trueness of digital impressions of the edentulous arch made with different scanners to conventional physical impressions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 40 impressions of a completely edentulous maxillary arch model (<i>n</i> = 10) were made using different digital impressions with an extraoral scanner, E3 3Shape desktop scanner, as the reference scan, intraoral scanner (TRIOS IOS, and Medit IOS) and Vinyl Polysiloxane impressions (VPS) impression using a Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD-CAM) custom tray. The VPS impression was scanned with the desktop scanner to produce standard tessellation language (STL) files for comparison with the digital impressions made by the Desktop and intraoral scanners. The STL files were super-imposed to a desktop scan and to each other with the same group using Geomagic Control X Software to assess the trueness and precision, respectively. A t-test was conducted for statistical analysis with a significance level of 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall trueness, Medit had the highest deviation compared to the VPS and TRIOS groups with a <i>P</i> value of 0.0013 and <0.0001, respectively. In terms of overall precision, TRIOS had a lower deviation than the VPS group, with a <i>P</i> value of 0.0002. The TRIOS and Medit groups had statistically comparable results. The desktop scanner showed the highest precision in digitizing completely edentulous cases, followed by the TRIOS scanner. The Medit scanner's trueness had the highest deviation compared to the VPS and TRIOS groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":19799,"journal":{"name":"PeerJ","volume":"13 ","pages":"e19075"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11871899/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trueness and precision of complete denture digital impression compared to conventional impression: an <i>in vitro</i> study.\",\"authors\":\"Yousif A Al-Dulaijan, Haidar Alalawi, Mohammed M Gad, Faisal D Al-Qarni, Shaimaa M Fouda, Passent Ellakany\",\"doi\":\"10.7717/peerj.19075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the precision and trueness of digital impressions of the edentulous arch made with different scanners to conventional physical impressions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 40 impressions of a completely edentulous maxillary arch model (<i>n</i> = 10) were made using different digital impressions with an extraoral scanner, E3 3Shape desktop scanner, as the reference scan, intraoral scanner (TRIOS IOS, and Medit IOS) and Vinyl Polysiloxane impressions (VPS) impression using a Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD-CAM) custom tray. The VPS impression was scanned with the desktop scanner to produce standard tessellation language (STL) files for comparison with the digital impressions made by the Desktop and intraoral scanners. The STL files were super-imposed to a desktop scan and to each other with the same group using Geomagic Control X Software to assess the trueness and precision, respectively. A t-test was conducted for statistical analysis with a significance level of 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall trueness, Medit had the highest deviation compared to the VPS and TRIOS groups with a <i>P</i> value of 0.0013 and <0.0001, respectively. In terms of overall precision, TRIOS had a lower deviation than the VPS group, with a <i>P</i> value of 0.0002. The TRIOS and Medit groups had statistically comparable results. The desktop scanner showed the highest precision in digitizing completely edentulous cases, followed by the TRIOS scanner. The Medit scanner's trueness had the highest deviation compared to the VPS and TRIOS groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PeerJ\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"e19075\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11871899/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PeerJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19075\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PeerJ","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19075","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本研究旨在比较不同扫描仪对无牙弓的数字印模与传统物理印模的准确性和真实感。方法:采用不同的数字印模,采用口外扫描仪、E3 3Shape桌面扫描仪作为参考扫描、口内扫描仪(TRIOS IOS和Medit IOS)和乙烯基聚硅氧烷(VPS)印模,采用计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD-CAM)定制托盘制作40个完全无牙上颌弓模型(n = 10)。用桌面扫描仪扫描VPS印模,产生标准镶嵌语言(STL)文件,与桌面扫描仪和口内扫描仪制作的数字印模进行比较。使用Geomagic Control X软件将STL文件叠加到桌面扫描上,并与同一组文件相互叠加,分别评估准确性和精度。采用t检验进行统计学分析,显著性水平为0.05。结果:与VPS和TRIOS组相比,Medit组的整体正确度偏差最大,P值分别为0.0013和0.0002。TRIOS组和Medit组的结果具有统计学上的可比性。桌面扫描仪对全无牙病例的数字化精度最高,其次是TRIOS扫描仪。与VPS和TRIOS组相比,Medit扫描仪的准确率偏差最大。
Trueness and precision of complete denture digital impression compared to conventional impression: an in vitro study.
Background: This study aimed to compare the precision and trueness of digital impressions of the edentulous arch made with different scanners to conventional physical impressions.
Methods: A total of 40 impressions of a completely edentulous maxillary arch model (n = 10) were made using different digital impressions with an extraoral scanner, E3 3Shape desktop scanner, as the reference scan, intraoral scanner (TRIOS IOS, and Medit IOS) and Vinyl Polysiloxane impressions (VPS) impression using a Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD-CAM) custom tray. The VPS impression was scanned with the desktop scanner to produce standard tessellation language (STL) files for comparison with the digital impressions made by the Desktop and intraoral scanners. The STL files were super-imposed to a desktop scan and to each other with the same group using Geomagic Control X Software to assess the trueness and precision, respectively. A t-test was conducted for statistical analysis with a significance level of 0.05.
Results: The overall trueness, Medit had the highest deviation compared to the VPS and TRIOS groups with a P value of 0.0013 and <0.0001, respectively. In terms of overall precision, TRIOS had a lower deviation than the VPS group, with a P value of 0.0002. The TRIOS and Medit groups had statistically comparable results. The desktop scanner showed the highest precision in digitizing completely edentulous cases, followed by the TRIOS scanner. The Medit scanner's trueness had the highest deviation compared to the VPS and TRIOS groups.
期刊介绍:
PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. At PeerJ, authors take out a lifetime publication plan (for as little as $99) which allows them to publish articles in the journal for free, forever. PeerJ has 5 Nobel Prize Winners on the Board; they have won several industry and media awards; and they are widely recognized as being one of the most interesting recent developments in academic publishing.