Luís Azevedo, Tiago Marques, Duygu Karasan, Vincent Fehmer, Irena Sailer, André Correia, Miguel Gómez Polo
{"title":"种植体扫描体材料和口腔内扫描仪对全弓数字种植体印模精度的影响。","authors":"Luís Azevedo, Tiago Marques, Duygu Karasan, Vincent Fehmer, Irena Sailer, André Correia, Miguel Gómez Polo","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions using different intraoral scan body (ISB) materials and intraoral scanners (IOSs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The mandibular dental cast of an edentulous patient with six tissue-level dental implants was used as the master cast. Two types of ISBs-polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and plasma-coated medical titanium-were used with five IOSs: TRIOS 4 (T4), Virtuo Vivo (VV), Medit i700 (Mi700), iTero 5D (i5D), and Primescan (PS). To assess accuracy, digital impressions (n = 10) with each IOS and ISB were compared to two reference models obtained by digitizing the master cast with each ISB type using a desktop scanner (IScan4D LS3i) and importing the scan data into metrology software (Geomagic Control X). Root mean square (RMS) error was employed to evaluate overall deviation values (trueness), while precision was determined using the SD of RMS values. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Kruskal-Wallis test was used, followed by the pairwise comparison method with Bonferroni correction (α = .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An interaction between ISB material and IOS was found (P = .001). Plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs demonstrated significantly higher trueness and precision compared to PEEK ISBs with T4 (P = .001), Mi700 (P = .001; P = .004), and i5D (P = .001). Conversely, VV exhibited higher trueness and precision values with PEEK ISBs (P = .005; P = .003). PS provided the highest trueness and precision regardless of the ISB material (P = .912). T4 showed the lowest accuracy for PEEK ISBs, and VV showed the lowest accuracy for plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Except for PS, all IOSs showed significant differences between ISB materials. PS demonstrated the highest accuracy with both ISB materials, whereas T4 had the lowest accuracy for PEEK ISBs, and VV showed the lowest accuracy for plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Implant ScanBody Material and Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions.\",\"authors\":\"Luís Azevedo, Tiago Marques, Duygu Karasan, Vincent Fehmer, Irena Sailer, André Correia, Miguel Gómez Polo\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.8565\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions using different intraoral scan body (ISB) materials and intraoral scanners (IOSs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The mandibular dental cast of an edentulous patient with six tissue-level dental implants was used as the master cast. Two types of ISBs-polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and plasma-coated medical titanium-were used with five IOSs: TRIOS 4 (T4), Virtuo Vivo (VV), Medit i700 (Mi700), iTero 5D (i5D), and Primescan (PS). To assess accuracy, digital impressions (n = 10) with each IOS and ISB were compared to two reference models obtained by digitizing the master cast with each ISB type using a desktop scanner (IScan4D LS3i) and importing the scan data into metrology software (Geomagic Control X). Root mean square (RMS) error was employed to evaluate overall deviation values (trueness), while precision was determined using the SD of RMS values. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Kruskal-Wallis test was used, followed by the pairwise comparison method with Bonferroni correction (α = .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An interaction between ISB material and IOS was found (P = .001). Plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs demonstrated significantly higher trueness and precision compared to PEEK ISBs with T4 (P = .001), Mi700 (P = .001; P = .004), and i5D (P = .001). Conversely, VV exhibited higher trueness and precision values with PEEK ISBs (P = .005; P = .003). PS provided the highest trueness and precision regardless of the ISB material (P = .912). T4 showed the lowest accuracy for PEEK ISBs, and VV showed the lowest accuracy for plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Except for PS, all IOSs showed significant differences between ISB materials. PS demonstrated the highest accuracy with both ISB materials, whereas T4 had the lowest accuracy for PEEK ISBs, and VV showed the lowest accuracy for plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8565\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评估使用不同的口内扫描体(ISB)材料和口内扫描仪(IOS)进行足弓数字种植体完全印模的准确性。两种类型的ISB,聚醚醚酮(PEEK)和等离子涂层医用钛,与五种IOS一起使用:TRIOS 4(T4)、Virtuo Vivo(VV)、Medit i700(Mi700)、iTero5D(i5D)和Primescan(PS)。为了评估准确性,将每个IOS和ISB的数字压痕(n=10)与两个参考模型进行比较,这两个参考模式是通过使用台式扫描仪(IScan4D LS3i)数字化每个ISB类型的主铸件并将扫描数据导入计量软件(Geomagic Control X)获得的。均方根(RMS)误差用于评估总体偏差值(真实性),而精度则使用RMS值的标准偏差(SD)来确定。统计学显著性为P<0.05。使用Kruskal-Wallis测试,然后采用Bonferroni校正的成对比较方法(α=.05)。结果:发现ISB材料和IOS之间存在相互作用(P=0.001)。与具有T4(P=0.001,与PEEK ISBs相比,VV显示出更高的真实度和精度值(P=0.005;P=0.003)。无论ISB材料如何,PS都提供了最高的真实度与精度(P=0.912)。T4对PEEK ISB显示出最低的精度,而对等离子体涂层医用钛ISB显示VV。结论:除PS外,所有IOS在ISB材料之间都显示出显著差异。PS在两种ISB材料中都表现出最高的准确度,而T4在PEEK ISB中的准确度最低,VV在等离子涂层医用钛ISB中表现出最低的准确度。
Influence of Implant ScanBody Material and Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions.
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions using different intraoral scan body (ISB) materials and intraoral scanners (IOSs).
Materials and methods: The mandibular dental cast of an edentulous patient with six tissue-level dental implants was used as the master cast. Two types of ISBs-polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and plasma-coated medical titanium-were used with five IOSs: TRIOS 4 (T4), Virtuo Vivo (VV), Medit i700 (Mi700), iTero 5D (i5D), and Primescan (PS). To assess accuracy, digital impressions (n = 10) with each IOS and ISB were compared to two reference models obtained by digitizing the master cast with each ISB type using a desktop scanner (IScan4D LS3i) and importing the scan data into metrology software (Geomagic Control X). Root mean square (RMS) error was employed to evaluate overall deviation values (trueness), while precision was determined using the SD of RMS values. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Kruskal-Wallis test was used, followed by the pairwise comparison method with Bonferroni correction (α = .05).
Results: An interaction between ISB material and IOS was found (P = .001). Plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs demonstrated significantly higher trueness and precision compared to PEEK ISBs with T4 (P = .001), Mi700 (P = .001; P = .004), and i5D (P = .001). Conversely, VV exhibited higher trueness and precision values with PEEK ISBs (P = .005; P = .003). PS provided the highest trueness and precision regardless of the ISB material (P = .912). T4 showed the lowest accuracy for PEEK ISBs, and VV showed the lowest accuracy for plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs.
Conclusions: Except for PS, all IOSs showed significant differences between ISB materials. PS demonstrated the highest accuracy with both ISB materials, whereas T4 had the lowest accuracy for PEEK ISBs, and VV showed the lowest accuracy for plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs.