4 种不同口内扫描仪在不同扫描距离和角度下获得的口内数字扫描的扫描精度和扫描面积差异。

IF 4.3 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.025

Heather Button MEd , John C. Kois DMD, MSD , Abdul B. Barmak MD, MSc, EdD , Jonathan M. Zeitler , Vygandas Rutkunas DDS, PhD , Marta Revilla-León DDS, MSD, PhD

{"title":"4 种不同口内扫描仪在不同扫描距离和角度下获得的口内数字扫描的扫描精度和扫描面积差异。","authors":"Heather Button MEd , John C. Kois DMD, MSD , Abdul B. Barmak MD, MSc, EdD , Jonathan M. Zeitler , Vygandas Rutkunas DDS, PhD , Marta Revilla-León DDS, MSD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div><span>The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be affected by operator handling; however, the scanning area and accuracy discrepancies acquired at different scanning distances and </span>angulations among IOSs remain uncertain.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the scanning area and scanning accuracy of the intraoral digital scans obtained at 3 scanning distances with 4 different scanning angulations among 4 different IOSs.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>A reference device (reference file) was designed with 4 inclinations (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees) and printed. Four groups were created based on the IOS: i700, TRIOS4, CS 3800, and iTero scanners. Four subgroups were generated depending on the scanning angulation (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees). Each subgroup was divided into 3 subgroups based on the scanning distance: 0, 2, and 4 mm (N=720, n=15). The reference devices were positioned in a z-axis calibrated platform for standardizing the scanning distance. In the i700-0-0 subgroup, the 0-degree reference device was positioned in the calibrated platform. The wand of the IOS was positioned in a supporting framework with a 0-mm scanning distance, and the scans were acquired. In the i700-0-2 subgroup, the platform was lowered for a 2-mm scanning distance followed by the specimen acquisition. In the i700-0-4 subgroup, the platform was further lowered for a 4-mm scanning distance, and the scans were obtained. For the i700-15, i700-30, and i700-45 subgroups, the same procedures were carried out as in the i700-0 subgroups respectively, but with the 10-, 15-, 30-, or 45-degree reference device. Similarly, the same procedures were completed for all the groups with the corresponding IOS. The area of each scan was measured. The reference file was used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by using the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the scanning area data. Kruskal–Wallis and multiple pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the RMS data (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>IOS (<em>P</em><.001), scanning distance (<em>P</em><.001), and scanning angle (<em>P</em><.001) were significant factors of the scanning area measured among the subgroups tested. A significant group×subgroup interaction was found (<em>P</em><.001). The iTero and the TRIOS4 groups obtained higher scanning area mean values than the i700 and CS 3800 groups. The CS 3800 obtained the lowest scanning area among the IOS groups tested. The 0-mm subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 2- and 4-mm subgroups (<em>P</em><.001). The 0- and 30-degree subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 15- and 45-degree subgroups (<em>P</em><.001). The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed significant median RMS discrepancies (<em>P</em><.001). All the IOS groups were significantly different from each other (<em>P</em><.001), except for the CS 3800 and TRIOS4 groups (<em>P</em>>.999). All the scanning distance groups were different from each other (<em>P</em><.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Scanning area and scanning accuracy were influenced by the IOS, scanning distance, and scanning angle selected to acquire the digital scans.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"132 5","pages":"Pages 1044-1060"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scanning accuracy and scanning area discrepancies of intraoral digital scans acquired at varying scanning distances and angulations among 4 different intraoral scanners\",\"authors\":\"Heather Button MEd , John C. Kois DMD, MSD , Abdul B. Barmak MD, MSc, EdD , Jonathan M. Zeitler , Vygandas Rutkunas DDS, PhD , Marta Revilla-León DDS, MSD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div><span>The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be affected by operator handling; however, the scanning area and accuracy discrepancies acquired at different scanning distances and </span>angulations among IOSs remain uncertain.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the scanning area and scanning accuracy of the intraoral digital scans obtained at 3 scanning distances with 4 different scanning angulations among 4 different IOSs.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>A reference device (reference file) was designed with 4 inclinations (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees) and printed. Four groups were created based on the IOS: i700, TRIOS4, CS 3800, and iTero scanners. Four subgroups were generated depending on the scanning angulation (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees). Each subgroup was divided into 3 subgroups based on the scanning distance: 0, 2, and 4 mm (N=720, n=15). The reference devices were positioned in a z-axis calibrated platform for standardizing the scanning distance. In the i700-0-0 subgroup, the 0-degree reference device was positioned in the calibrated platform. The wand of the IOS was positioned in a supporting framework with a 0-mm scanning distance, and the scans were acquired. In the i700-0-2 subgroup, the platform was lowered for a 2-mm scanning distance followed by the specimen acquisition. In the i700-0-4 subgroup, the platform was further lowered for a 4-mm scanning distance, and the scans were obtained. For the i700-15, i700-30, and i700-45 subgroups, the same procedures were carried out as in the i700-0 subgroups respectively, but with the 10-, 15-, 30-, or 45-degree reference device. Similarly, the same procedures were completed for all the groups with the corresponding IOS. The area of each scan was measured. The reference file was used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by using the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the scanning area data. Kruskal–Wallis and multiple pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the RMS data (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>IOS (<em>P</em><.001), scanning distance (<em>P</em><.001), and scanning angle (<em>P</em><.001) were significant factors of the scanning area measured among the subgroups tested. A significant group×subgroup interaction was found (<em>P</em><.001). The iTero and the TRIOS4 groups obtained higher scanning area mean values than the i700 and CS 3800 groups. The CS 3800 obtained the lowest scanning area among the IOS groups tested. The 0-mm subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 2- and 4-mm subgroups (<em>P</em><.001). The 0- and 30-degree subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 15- and 45-degree subgroups (<em>P</em><.001). The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed significant median RMS discrepancies (<em>P</em><.001). All the IOS groups were significantly different from each other (<em>P</em><.001), except for the CS 3800 and TRIOS4 groups (<em>P</em>>.999). All the scanning distance groups were different from each other (<em>P</em><.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Scanning area and scanning accuracy were influenced by the IOS, scanning distance, and scanning angle selected to acquire the digital scans.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"132 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1044-1060\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391323000677\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391323000677","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

摘要

问题陈述：口内扫描仪（IOS）的准确性会受到操作者操作的影响；然而，在不同的扫描距离和角度下，IOS获得的扫描面积和准确性差异仍不确定。目的：本体外研究的目的是比较4种不同IOS在3个扫描距离和4个不同扫描角度下获得的口内数字扫描的扫描面积和扫描准确性：设计并打印了 4 种倾斜角度（0、15、30 和 45 度）的参考装置（参考文件）。根据 IOS 创建了四组：i700、TRIOS4、CS 3800 和 iTero 扫描仪。根据扫描角度（0 度、15 度、30 度和 45 度）的不同，分为四个子组。根据扫描距离，每个子组又分为 3 个子组：0、2 和 4 毫米（N=720，n=15）。参考设备放置在一个 Z 轴校准平台上，用于标准化扫描距离。在 i700-0-0 分组中，0 度参考设备被放置在校准平台上。将 IOS 扫描棒放置在扫描距离为 0 毫米的支撑框架中，然后获取扫描结果。在 i700-0-2 亚组中，将平台降低 2 毫米扫描距离，然后采集标本。在 i700-0-4 亚组中，进一步降低平台，扫描距离为 4 毫米，然后获取扫描结果。对于 i700-15、i700-30 和 i700-45 亚组，分别执行与 i700-0 亚组相同的程序，但使用 10、15、30 或 45 度的参考装置。同样，各组也使用相应的 IOS 完成了相同的程序。测量每次扫描的面积。使用均方根（RMS）误差来测量参考文件与实验扫描之间的差异。采用三方方差分析和事后 Tukey 配对比较测试来分析扫描面积数据。Kruskal-Wallis 和多重配对比较检验用于分析均方根数据（α=.05）：IOS（P.999）。所有扫描距离组之间均存在差异（PConclusions：扫描面积和扫描精度受获取数字扫描时选择的 IOS、扫描距离和扫描角度的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Scanning accuracy and scanning area discrepancies of intraoral digital scans acquired at varying scanning distances and angulations among 4 different intraoral scanners

Statement of problem

The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be affected by operator handling; however, the scanning area and accuracy discrepancies acquired at different scanning distances and angulations among IOSs remain uncertain.

Purpose

The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the scanning area and scanning accuracy of the intraoral digital scans obtained at 3 scanning distances with 4 different scanning angulations among 4 different IOSs.

Material and methods

A reference device (reference file) was designed with 4 inclinations (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees) and printed. Four groups were created based on the IOS: i700, TRIOS4, CS 3800, and iTero scanners. Four subgroups were generated depending on the scanning angulation (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees). Each subgroup was divided into 3 subgroups based on the scanning distance: 0, 2, and 4 mm (N=720, n=15). The reference devices were positioned in a z-axis calibrated platform for standardizing the scanning distance. In the i700-0-0 subgroup, the 0-degree reference device was positioned in the calibrated platform. The wand of the IOS was positioned in a supporting framework with a 0-mm scanning distance, and the scans were acquired. In the i700-0-2 subgroup, the platform was lowered for a 2-mm scanning distance followed by the specimen acquisition. In the i700-0-4 subgroup, the platform was further lowered for a 4-mm scanning distance, and the scans were obtained. For the i700-15, i700-30, and i700-45 subgroups, the same procedures were carried out as in the i700-0 subgroups respectively, but with the 10-, 15-, 30-, or 45-degree reference device. Similarly, the same procedures were completed for all the groups with the corresponding IOS. The area of each scan was measured. The reference file was used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by using the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the scanning area data. Kruskal–Wallis and multiple pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the RMS data (α=.05).

Results

IOS (P<.001), scanning distance (P<.001), and scanning angle (P<.001) were significant factors of the scanning area measured among the subgroups tested. A significant group×subgroup interaction was found (P<.001). The iTero and the TRIOS4 groups obtained higher scanning area mean values than the i700 and CS 3800 groups. The CS 3800 obtained the lowest scanning area among the IOS groups tested. The 0-mm subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 2- and 4-mm subgroups (P<.001). The 0- and 30-degree subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 15- and 45-degree subgroups (P<.001). The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed significant median RMS discrepancies (P<.001). All the IOS groups were significantly different from each other (P<.001), except for the CS 3800 and TRIOS4 groups (P>.999). All the scanning distance groups were different from each other (P<.001).

Conclusions

Scanning area and scanning accuracy were influenced by the IOS, scanning distance, and scanning angle selected to acquire the digital scans.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

7.00

自引率

13.00%

发文量

599

审稿时长

69 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.