Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy for Mandibular Edentulous Arches Using Resin Markers: An In Vitro Study.

IF 1.7
Hongseok An, Molly Tess McCoy, Despoina Bompolaki
{"title":"Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy for Mandibular Edentulous Arches Using Resin Markers: An In Vitro Study.","authors":"Hongseok An, Molly Tess McCoy, Despoina Bompolaki","doi":"10.11607/jomi.11396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of IOS for edentulous mandibular implant scanning, when intraoral resin markers are incorporated. Two commonly used intraoral scanners were assessed under simulated oral mucosa conditions to determine the effect of resin markers on IOS accuracy.</p><p><strong>Materials & methods: </strong>A mandibular study model with four implants and simulated unattached mucosa was fabricated. The model was scanned using two intraoral scanners (Trios4, 3Shape A/S; Primescan, Dentsply Sirona), both with and without flowable composite resin markers applied between scan bodies. A total of 30 scans were captured per scanner (15 without markers, 15 with markers), resulting in four IOS groups: TR (Trios4), PS (Primescan), TRmark (Trios4 with markers), and PSmark (Primescan with markers). Indirect digitization was performed via conventional impressions, stone model fabrication, and laboratory scanning (IND group). A reference scan (REF) was obtained using a high-accuracy laboratory scanner (E4, 3Shape A/S). All scan files were analyzed in Geomagic Control software. Root-mean-square (RMS) values were calculated for trueness and precision. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate group differences, followed by pairwise comparisons (α = .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Trueness analysis revealed significant differences among groups (p < .001). IND exhibited the highest trueness, followed by TRmark, PSmark, and PS, while TR showed the lowest trueness. Precision analysis indicated a significant influence of the scanning method (p < .001). PSmark, TRmark, and IND showed the highest precision, and TR had the lowest precision. The addition of resin markers significantly improved both trueness and precision for Trios4.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Indirect digitization remains the most accurate method for full-arch implant scanning. Scanner type affects IOS accuracy, with Primescan demonstrating higher accuracy than Trios4 without resin markers. Resin markers significantly improved IOS accuracy, particularly for Trios4, where both trueness and precision increased.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11396","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of IOS for edentulous mandibular implant scanning, when intraoral resin markers are incorporated. Two commonly used intraoral scanners were assessed under simulated oral mucosa conditions to determine the effect of resin markers on IOS accuracy.

Materials & methods: A mandibular study model with four implants and simulated unattached mucosa was fabricated. The model was scanned using two intraoral scanners (Trios4, 3Shape A/S; Primescan, Dentsply Sirona), both with and without flowable composite resin markers applied between scan bodies. A total of 30 scans were captured per scanner (15 without markers, 15 with markers), resulting in four IOS groups: TR (Trios4), PS (Primescan), TRmark (Trios4 with markers), and PSmark (Primescan with markers). Indirect digitization was performed via conventional impressions, stone model fabrication, and laboratory scanning (IND group). A reference scan (REF) was obtained using a high-accuracy laboratory scanner (E4, 3Shape A/S). All scan files were analyzed in Geomagic Control software. Root-mean-square (RMS) values were calculated for trueness and precision. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate group differences, followed by pairwise comparisons (α = .05).

Results: Trueness analysis revealed significant differences among groups (p < .001). IND exhibited the highest trueness, followed by TRmark, PSmark, and PS, while TR showed the lowest trueness. Precision analysis indicated a significant influence of the scanning method (p < .001). PSmark, TRmark, and IND showed the highest precision, and TR had the lowest precision. The addition of resin markers significantly improved both trueness and precision for Trios4.

Conclusions: Indirect digitization remains the most accurate method for full-arch implant scanning. Scanner type affects IOS accuracy, with Primescan demonstrating higher accuracy than Trios4 without resin markers. Resin markers significantly improved IOS accuracy, particularly for Trios4, where both trueness and precision increased.

树脂标记提高下颌无牙弓口腔内扫描精度的体外研究。
目的:本研究的目的是评估在结合口腔内树脂标记物的情况下,IOS用于无牙下颌种植体扫描的准确性。在模拟口腔黏膜条件下评估两种常用的口腔内扫描仪,以确定树脂标记物对IOS准确性的影响。材料与方法:制作具有四个种植体和模拟未附着粘膜的下颌研究模型。使用两台口腔内扫描仪(Trios4, 3Shape A/S; Primescan, Dentsply Sirona)对模型进行扫描,扫描体之间分别使用和不使用可流动的复合树脂标记物。每台扫描仪共捕获30次扫描(15次不带标记,15次带标记),形成4个IOS组:TR (Trios4)、PS (Primescan)、TRmark (Trios4带标记)和PSmark (Primescan带标记)。间接数字化通过传统的印象,石头模型制作和实验室扫描(IND组)进行。使用高精度实验室扫描仪(E4, 3Shape A/S)获得参考扫描图(REF)。所有扫描文件在Geomagic Control软件中进行分析。计算正确率和精密度的均方根(RMS)值。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验评价组间差异,两两比较(α = 0.05)。结果:正确率分析显示组间差异有统计学意义(p < 0.001)。IND的正确率最高,TRmark、PSmark和PS次之,TR的正确率最低。精密度分析显示扫描方法对其有显著影响(p < 0.001)。PSmark、TRmark和IND精度最高,TR精度最低。树脂标记物的加入显著提高了Trios4的准确性和准确性。结论:间接数字化仍然是全弓种植体扫描最准确的方法。扫描仪类型会影响IOS的精度,Primescan比没有树脂标记的Trios4显示更高的精度。树脂标记显著提高了IOS的准确性,特别是Trios4,其准确性和精度都有所提高。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信