Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners

IF 1.7 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical and Experimental Dental Research Pub Date : 2024-05-16 DOI:10.1002/cre2.899

Maryam Khoshkhahesh, Shabnam Enteghad, Kiana Aghasadeghi, Mitra Farzin, Masumeh Taghva, Seyed Ali Mosadad

{"title":"Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners","authors":"Maryam Khoshkhahesh, Shabnam Enteghad, Kiana Aghasadeghi, Mitra Farzin, Masumeh Taghva, Seyed Ali Mosadad","doi":"10.1002/cre2.899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni-Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Trios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (<i>p</i> value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (<i>p</i> value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>For Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10203,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cre2.899","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.899","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions.

Material and Methods

A customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni-Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners.

Results

Trios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (p value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (p value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate.

Conclusion

For Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估不同牙芯基底对口内扫描仪精度的影响。

背景：本研究的目的是确定不同类型的牙髓基底是否会对数字化口内印模的真实性和精确性产生影响：在前臼齿的位置上制作了一个定制的类型牙，有天然牙本质、复合材料、金属（镍铬合金）和氧化锆四种类似的牙髓。使用两种口内扫描仪（Carestream 3600 和 3Shape Trios 3）对研究模型进行了五次扫描，并使用实验室扫描仪（3shape D1000）进行了参考标准扫描。使用计量软件（Geomagic X）对实验扫描数据和参考扫描数据进行对齐，以确定偏差值（真实度）。每个口内扫描仪组的精确度值都是通过随机叠加计算得出的。Kruskal-Wallis 检验用于比较不同基底之间的差异，Mann-Whitney 检验用于比较两种扫描仪之间的平均值：结果：Trios 3 的真实度和精确度明显高于 Carestream 3600（P 值 = .005，结论：对于 Carestream 3600，基质类型、基质类型、基质类型、基质类型、基质类型、基质类型、基质类型、基质类型、基质类型、基质类型、基质类型、基质类型）：对于 Carestream 3600，基质类型确实会影响口内扫描的真实度，牙本质和氧化锆的准确度分别最高和最低，而 Trios 3 对所有基质的准确度都差不多。Trios 3 的真实度和精确度均高于 Carestream 3600。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical and Experimental Dental Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.60%

发文量

165

审稿时长

26 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinical and Experimental Dental Research aims to provide open access peer-reviewed publications of high scientific quality representing original clinical, diagnostic or experimental work within all disciplines and fields of oral medicine and dentistry. The scope of Clinical and Experimental Dental Research comprises original research material on the anatomy, physiology and pathology of oro-facial, oro-pharyngeal and maxillofacial tissues, and functions and dysfunctions within the stomatognathic system, and the epidemiology, aetiology, prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and therapy of diseases and conditions that have an effect on the homeostasis of the mouth, jaws, and closely associated structures, as well as the healing and regeneration and the clinical aspects of replacement of hard and soft tissues with biomaterials, and the rehabilitation of stomatognathic functions. Studies that bring new knowledge on how to advance health on the individual or public health levels, including interactions between oral and general health and ill-health are welcome.