Accuracy of intraoral scanners in neonates cleft anatomy.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI:10.3290/j.ijcd.b5886430

Raphael Ferrari, Mutlu Özcan, Daniel Wiedemeier, Harald Essig

{"title":"Accuracy of intraoral scanners in neonates cleft anatomy.","authors":"Raphael Ferrari, Mutlu Özcan, Daniel Wiedemeier, Harald Essig","doi":"10.3290/j.ijcd.b5886430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study investigated the accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) based on different image acquisition technologies in the field of presurgical-orthopedictreatment (PSOT) in neonates with cleft.Methods: Dental cast models of clinical situations representing unilateral cleft-lip-palate(UCLP), bilateral cleft-lippalate( BCLP) and cleft-palate(CP) with reference PEEK-scanbodies (Cares RC Mono-Scankörper, Straumann, Switzerland) were scanned utilizing four IOS systems: CareStream-CS3600®(CS), Medit-i500®(MD), Cerec-Omnicam®(SO), 3Shape-Trios-3®(TS). One calibrated operator made 5 scans from each model using each IOS (N=60). Reference digital impressions were obtained by an industrialgrade laboratory scanner (Sirona inEos-X5) and superimposed using best fit algorithm. The divergence measure was extracted and the scanners were compared in view of their accuracy using generalized least squares statistical models that account for variance heterogeneity. Additionally, comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed using the reverse engineering software (Geomagic-ControlX) in order to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the reference scan in different anatomic regions of interest: alveolar-crest(AC), cleft(CL), palate(PL), vestibulum(VS), premaxilla(PM).Results: The four IOS showed relevant and significant differences in estimated trueness (P<0.001) and precision (P=0.009). Among all anatomical models and analysed area of interest TS had the best accuracy (trueness: -1.57μm; precision: 9.41μm), followed by MD (trueness: - 20.63μm; precision: 29.18μm), CS (trueness: -40.43μm; precision: 16.52μm) and SO (trueness: 81.27μm; precision: 40.32μm).Conclusions: Impression of the maxilla in cleft lip and palate patients is challenging for the operator. Relevant and significant differences in trueness and precision were found between the four IOS. TS showed the best accuracy and was least influenced IOS under different anatomical situations.","PeriodicalId":48666,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","volume":"0 0","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ijcd.b5886430","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This study investigated the accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) based on different image acquisition technologies in the field of presurgical-orthopedictreatment (PSOT) in neonates with cleft.

Methods: Dental cast models of clinical situations representing unilateral cleft-lip-palate(UCLP), bilateral cleft-lippalate( BCLP) and cleft-palate(CP) with reference PEEK-scanbodies (Cares RC Mono-Scankörper, Straumann, Switzerland) were scanned utilizing four IOS systems: CareStream-CS3600®(CS), Medit-i500®(MD), Cerec-Omnicam®(SO), 3Shape-Trios-3®(TS). One calibrated operator made 5 scans from each model using each IOS (N=60). Reference digital impressions were obtained by an industrialgrade laboratory scanner (Sirona inEos-X5) and superimposed using best fit algorithm. The divergence measure was extracted and the scanners were compared in view of their accuracy using generalized least squares statistical models that account for variance heterogeneity. Additionally, comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed using the reverse engineering software (Geomagic-ControlX) in order to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the reference scan in different anatomic regions of interest: alveolar-crest(AC), cleft(CL), palate(PL), vestibulum(VS), premaxilla(PM).

Results: The four IOS showed relevant and significant differences in estimated trueness (P<0.001) and precision (P=0.009). Among all anatomical models and analysed area of interest TS had the best accuracy (trueness: -1.57μm; precision: 9.41μm), followed by MD (trueness: - 20.63μm; precision: 29.18μm), CS (trueness: -40.43μm; precision: 16.52μm) and SO (trueness: 81.27μm; precision: 40.32μm).

Conclusions: Impression of the maxilla in cleft lip and palate patients is challenging for the operator. Relevant and significant differences in trueness and precision were found between the four IOS. TS showed the best accuracy and was least influenced IOS under different anatomical situations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

口腔内扫描仪在新生儿唇裂解剖中的准确性。

目的：探讨基于不同图像采集技术的口腔内扫描仪（IOS）在新生儿唇裂术前矫形治疗（PSOT）中的准确性。方法：采用参考PEEK-scanbodies （Cares RC Mono-Scankörper, Straumann, Switzerland）对临床表现为单侧唇腭裂（UCLP）、双侧唇裂（BCLP）和腭裂（CP）的牙模模型进行扫描，使用4种IOS系统：carestream_cs3600®（CS）、Medit-i500®（MD）、Cerec-Omnicam®（SO）、3Shape-Trios-3®（TS）。一名校准操作员使用每个IOS对每个模型进行5次扫描（N=60）。参考数字图像由工业级实验室扫描仪（Sirona inEos-X5）获得，并使用最佳拟合算法进行叠加。提取散度度量，并使用考虑方差异质性的广义最小二乘统计模型对扫描仪的精度进行比较。此外，使用逆向工程软件（Geomagic-ControlX）对扫描进行比较三维分析，以测量口腔内扫描与参考扫描在不同解剖区域的差异：牙槽嵴（AC）、腭裂（CL）、上颚（PL）、前庭（VS）、上颌骨前（PM）。结论：唇腭裂患者的上颌骨印模对术者来说是一个挑战。四种检测方法在准确性和准确性上存在相关且显著的差异。在不同解剖情况下，TS的准确性最好，对IOS的影响最小。

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

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (miscellaneous)

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： This journal explores the myriad innovations in the emerging field of computerized dentistry and how to integrate them into clinical practice. The bulk of the journal is devoted to the science of computer-assisted dentistry, with research articles and clinical reports on all aspects of computer-based diagnostic and therapeutic applications, with special emphasis placed on CAD/CAM and image-processing systems. Articles also address the use of computer-based communication to support patient care, assess the quality of care, and enhance clinical decision making. The journal is presented in a bilingual format, with each issue offering three types of articles: science-based, application-based, and national society reports.