Effect of an auxiliary device on scanning accuracy for multiple implants: an in vitro comparative study.

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Mingyue Lyu, Dingyi Xu, Yizhou Li, Shiwen Zhang, Heling Zhao, Quan Yuan
{"title":"Effect of an auxiliary device on scanning accuracy for multiple implants: an in vitro comparative study.","authors":"Mingyue Lyu, Dingyi Xu, Yizhou Li, Shiwen Zhang, Heling Zhao, Quan Yuan","doi":"10.1186/s13005-025-00511-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the influence of a consumable auxiliary device, the O-I buckle, on the accuracy of intraoral scanning among complete arches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A standard mandibular model with six implants was used as the master model and was scanned by a precise dental laboratory scanner to establish a reference. Three impression techniques were compared: the conventional splinted open-tray impression (CI group), the digital intraoral scanning technique (IOS group), and IOS with the auxiliary device (OI group). For OI group, six prefabricated O-I buckles were attached for each intraoral scan body (ISB) and the definite models were scanned 10 times. The STL datasets were imported into a 3D inspection software to obtain the trueness and precision values for three scanning ranges (BCDE, BCDEF, and ABCDEF). The trueness was the absolute value of the root mean square (RMS) between the reference and test models, while precision referred to the value of the test group subtracted from each other. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparison tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The impression method (p <.001) and scanning range (p <.001) significantly influenced the trueness and precision of implant impressions for complete edentulous arches. The IOS with O-I buckle showed higher trueness compared to the IOS group for all implant configurations with most being significantly different (p =.758, = 0.04, and = < 0.001 for BCDE, BCDEF, and ABCDEF, respectively) and significantly higher precision was seen in group ABCDEF (p <.001). For four and five implants (group BCDE and BCDEF), there was no significant difference comparing IOS with O-I buckle and CI (p >.05). As the range expanded, the trueness and precision of IOS and OI decreased (p <.05), whereas the accuracy of CI remained stable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The auxiliary O-I buckle fixed to the ISBs significantly improved the multiple-implant intraoral scanning accuracy for digital impressions in complete arches; With CI as a reference, the accuracy of IOS with OI buckles were comparable for four and five implants.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>The digitization accuracy of intraoral scanning for complete edentulous arches can be improved through IOS with OI buckles. This may lead to improved passive fit of the restoration, improving patient outcomes in a convenient and cheap way.</p>","PeriodicalId":12994,"journal":{"name":"Head & Face Medicine","volume":"21 1","pages":"32"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12036170/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head & Face Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-025-00511-y","RegionNum":2,"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

Objectives: To determine the influence of a consumable auxiliary device, the O-I buckle, on the accuracy of intraoral scanning among complete arches.

Methods: A standard mandibular model with six implants was used as the master model and was scanned by a precise dental laboratory scanner to establish a reference. Three impression techniques were compared: the conventional splinted open-tray impression (CI group), the digital intraoral scanning technique (IOS group), and IOS with the auxiliary device (OI group). For OI group, six prefabricated O-I buckles were attached for each intraoral scan body (ISB) and the definite models were scanned 10 times. The STL datasets were imported into a 3D inspection software to obtain the trueness and precision values for three scanning ranges (BCDE, BCDEF, and ABCDEF). The trueness was the absolute value of the root mean square (RMS) between the reference and test models, while precision referred to the value of the test group subtracted from each other. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparison tests.

Results: The impression method (p <.001) and scanning range (p <.001) significantly influenced the trueness and precision of implant impressions for complete edentulous arches. The IOS with O-I buckle showed higher trueness compared to the IOS group for all implant configurations with most being significantly different (p =.758, = 0.04, and = < 0.001 for BCDE, BCDEF, and ABCDEF, respectively) and significantly higher precision was seen in group ABCDEF (p <.001). For four and five implants (group BCDE and BCDEF), there was no significant difference comparing IOS with O-I buckle and CI (p >.05). As the range expanded, the trueness and precision of IOS and OI decreased (p <.05), whereas the accuracy of CI remained stable.

Conclusions: The auxiliary O-I buckle fixed to the ISBs significantly improved the multiple-implant intraoral scanning accuracy for digital impressions in complete arches; With CI as a reference, the accuracy of IOS with OI buckles were comparable for four and five implants.

Clinical relevance: The digitization accuracy of intraoral scanning for complete edentulous arches can be improved through IOS with OI buckles. This may lead to improved passive fit of the restoration, improving patient outcomes in a convenient and cheap way.

辅助装置对多植入物扫描精度的影响:体外比较研究。
目的:确定一种消耗性辅助装置O-I卡环对全弓口腔内扫描精度的影响。方法:采用标准下颌骨模型(含6个种植体)作为主模型,采用精密口腔实验室扫描仪进行扫描,建立参考模型。比较三种印模技术:传统的夹板开盘印模(CI组)、数字口内扫描技术(IOS组)和带辅助装置的IOS (OI组)。对于成骨不全组,每个口内扫描体(ISB)固定6个预制O-I扣环,确定模型扫描10次。将STL数据集导入三维检测软件,获得BCDE、BCDEF和ABCDEF三个扫描量程的真实度和精度值。真实度是参考模型与检验模型均方根(RMS)的绝对值,精度是检验组的值相互减去。采用双因素方差分析和事后多重比较检验对数据进行统计学分析。结果:印模法(p . 0.05)。结论:固定在isb上的辅助O-I卡扣显著提高了全弓数字印模的多种植体口内扫描精度;以CI为参照,4个和5个植入物带OI扣环的IOS的准确性相当。临床意义:采用带OI扣环的IOS可提高全无牙弓口内扫描的数字化精度。这可能会改善修复的被动配合,以方便和廉价的方式改善患者的预后。
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
Head & Face Medicine
Head & Face Medicine DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
32
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Head & Face Medicine is a multidisciplinary open access journal that publishes basic and clinical research concerning all aspects of cranial, facial and oral conditions. The journal covers all aspects of cranial, facial and oral diseases and their management. It has been designed as a multidisciplinary journal for clinicians and researchers involved in the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of diseases which affect the human head and face. The journal is wide-ranging, covering the development, aetiology, epidemiology and therapy of head and face diseases to the basic science that underlies these diseases. Management of head and face diseases includes all aspects of surgical and non-surgical treatments including psychopharmacological therapies.
×
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