Accuracy of intraoral versus desktop scanners used in digitizing polyvinyl siloxane impression for fabricating a CAD-CAM customized post and core.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Xinyue Cui, Yushu Liu, Rui Zhang, Xinzhi Wang
{"title":"Accuracy of intraoral versus desktop scanners used in digitizing polyvinyl siloxane impression for fabricating a CAD-CAM customized post and core.","authors":"Xinyue Cui, Yushu Liu, Rui Zhang, Xinzhi Wang","doi":"10.1111/jopr.13974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This in vitro study aimed to compare the 3-dimensional (3D) accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners when digitizing the post and core polyvinyl siloxane impressions.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Ten extracted human teeth were prepared to build a post space in the root canal. Each tooth was scanned using a micro-computed tomography device (MCT), and the slice data were reconstructed as controls. A conventional quadrant polyvinyl siloxane impression was made and scanned thrice using an intraoral scanner (IOS) and a desktop blue-light scanner (IMS), with one of the scans randomly selected as the definitive cast. Precision was assessed by comparing the deviations among repeated scans. Trueness was evaluated by analyzing the deviations between the MCT and each definitive cast (MCT-IOS and MCT-IMS). The clinically acceptable root mean square (RMS) value was set to 50 µm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean RMS values of the repeated scans of IOS and IMS were 18.3 ± 3.9 µm and 13.9 ± 6.2 µm (P < 0.05), and the difference between them was 4.4 ± 5.9 µm. The mean RMS values of MCT-IOS and MCT-IMS were 28.3 ±3.0 µm and 31.3 ± 4.2 µm (P < 0.05), with a difference of 3.0 ± 2.9 µm. The RMS values were significantly lower than 50 µm (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The IOS showed slightly better trueness than the IMS but slightly lower precision. The precision and trueness of the two scanners for digitizing post and core impressions were acceptable for clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13974","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

Abstract

Purpose: This in vitro study aimed to compare the 3-dimensional (3D) accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners when digitizing the post and core polyvinyl siloxane impressions.

Material and methods: Ten extracted human teeth were prepared to build a post space in the root canal. Each tooth was scanned using a micro-computed tomography device (MCT), and the slice data were reconstructed as controls. A conventional quadrant polyvinyl siloxane impression was made and scanned thrice using an intraoral scanner (IOS) and a desktop blue-light scanner (IMS), with one of the scans randomly selected as the definitive cast. Precision was assessed by comparing the deviations among repeated scans. Trueness was evaluated by analyzing the deviations between the MCT and each definitive cast (MCT-IOS and MCT-IMS). The clinically acceptable root mean square (RMS) value was set to 50 µm.

Results: The mean RMS values of the repeated scans of IOS and IMS were 18.3 ± 3.9 µm and 13.9 ± 6.2 µm (P < 0.05), and the difference between them was 4.4 ± 5.9 µm. The mean RMS values of MCT-IOS and MCT-IMS were 28.3 ±3.0 µm and 31.3 ± 4.2 µm (P < 0.05), with a difference of 3.0 ± 2.9 µm. The RMS values were significantly lower than 50 µm (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The IOS showed slightly better trueness than the IMS but slightly lower precision. The precision and trueness of the two scanners for digitizing post and core impressions were acceptable for clinical application.

口腔内扫描仪与台式扫描仪在数字化聚乙烯硅氧烷印模以制作 CAD-CAM 定制柱体和核芯方面的准确性对比。
目的:这项体外研究旨在比较口内扫描仪和台式扫描仪在数字化桩核聚乙烯硅氧烷印模时的三维(3D)精确度:材料: 准备了十颗拔出的人类牙齿,以便在根管中建立牙柱空间。使用微型计算机断层扫描设备(MCT)对每颗牙齿进行扫描,并将切片数据作为对照进行重建。使用口内扫描仪(IOS)和台式蓝光扫描仪(IMS)制作常规象限聚乙烯硅氧烷印模并扫描三次,随机选择其中一次扫描作为最终铸模。精确度通过比较重复扫描之间的偏差进行评估。真实度是通过分析 MCT 与每个最终模型(MCT-IOS 和 MCT-IMS)之间的偏差来评估的。临床可接受的均方根(RMS)值设定为 50 µm:IOS和IMS重复扫描的平均均方根值分别为18.3 ± 3.9 µm和13.9 ± 6.2 µm(P < 0.05),两者之间的差异为4.4 ± 5.9 µm。MCT-IOS 和 MCT-IMS 的平均有效值分别为 28.3 ±3.0 µm 和 31.3 ± 4.2 µm (P < 0.05),两者相差 3.0 ± 2.9 µm。均方根值明显低于 50 微米(P < 0.05):IOS的真实度略高于IMS,但精度略低。这两种扫描仪用于数字化印模柱和印模心的精度和真实度在临床应用中都是可以接受的。
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
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
171
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Prosthodontics promotes the advanced study and practice of prosthodontics, implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry. It is the official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, the American Dental Association-recognized voice of the Specialty of Prosthodontics. The journal publishes evidence-based original scientific articles presenting information that is relevant and useful to prosthodontists. Additionally, it publishes reports of innovative techniques, new instructional methodologies, and instructive clinical reports with an interdisciplinary flair. The journal is particularly focused on promoting the study and use of cutting-edge technology and positioning prosthodontists as the early-adopters of new technology in the dental community.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信